[el_cujo]

Absolutely, but most of this stuff happens outside of what shows up in the paper like coming up with excuses on why data points can be dropped or shopping around for different statistical methods that make things look the best. There can even be legit reasons for doing this kind of thing and that's what makes it hard to detect, it's basically just the honor system on whether you're "p-value hacking" or following common methods.

This is kind of why it annoys me a bit when I hear people harping on about trusting science, most science is not as simple as finding objective truths and just reporting them. That's not to say all science is bs and you're better off consulting a magic 8 ball, just that it should never be discouraged to look at methods and conclusions with a critical attitude. There is room for things to be fudged or pushed and very strong incentives for people to do it given how much money and prestige are on the line. It doesn't even have to be as big as a drug trial, one high profile publication can be enough to make a career so you can see how tempting it can be to just change a couple pixels in an image to boost a theory you earnestly believe is true