I wasn't aware of the this kind of thing in 2005. How do you think the trustworthiness of papers has been trending since then, generally speaking. It sounds like that was a bit of an outlier.
I don't think a single worse example has occurred since, even though there have been other high profile instances of falsifying data and other unethical conduct.
I think after the replication crisis the scientific community is more aware of the limitations and faults of the current system. This has impacted different fields in different ways, to varying degrees of improvements. Now, I think a lab like Hwang's would be meet with more skepticism from both readers and the top tier journals.
The biggest cause for skepticism now would be Hwang's claimed success rate with the techniques. If other labs couldn't reach similar levels of success then the most generous assumption would be that the techniques weren't described well enough in the articles. Compare this to CRISPR gene editing, which is a slightly more modern advancement in genetics that is valued because of how easily other labs can incorporate it.
I think after the replication crisis the scientific community is more aware of the limitations and faults of the current system. This has impacted different fields in different ways, to varying degrees of improvements. Now, I think a lab like Hwang's would be meet with more skepticism from both readers and the top tier journals.
The biggest cause for skepticism now would be Hwang's claimed success rate with the techniques. If other labs couldn't reach similar levels of success then the most generous assumption would be that the techniques weren't described well enough in the articles. Compare this to CRISPR gene editing, which is a slightly more modern advancement in genetics that is valued because of how easily other labs can incorporate it.