For the first argument I can't really speak beyond my field (physics, or specifically condensed matter physics), where I think it's fairly hard to be subtle. Often it's partial data presentation which allows for inverse Occam razor [1] (proposing fancy explaination instead of a simple one), which is why full data publication requirement are important (and seem to happen more).

In smaller sub (sub)fields sometimes fraud becomes large enough to self-sustain, like it happened with Majoranas [2,3] but even that kind of self-corrected. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.08284 [2] https://twitter.com/spinespresso/status/1503352928656138241 [3] https://espressospin.org/2022/11/17/the-fallen-angel-particl...

> without reporting the failed hypotheses(p hacking).

This one is so subtle, it's probable that many of the people doing it don't even realize they're doing something wrong.

That's the plausible deniability - how do you distinguish between deliberate p-hacking and just incompetence? Or even a plain mistake?