> What I take away from this all is that for every article about academic misconduct and p hacking there are 100 more where the peer review process (both before and during submission to a journal) caught the issues in time.
p-hacking isn't a mathematical error. It cannot be "caught" because it is not presented to referees--you slightly modify your hypotheses after you experiment based on results, or you throw out "outliers" that blow up your theory. These are things that don't even show up in a paper, they happen during the compilation of the paper.
How you could conclude that p-hacking is rare based on a completely unrelated experience is beyond me.
p-hacking isn't a mathematical error. It cannot be "caught" because it is not presented to referees--you slightly modify your hypotheses after you experiment based on results, or you throw out "outliers" that blow up your theory. These are things that don't even show up in a paper, they happen during the compilation of the paper.
How you could conclude that p-hacking is rare based on a completely unrelated experience is beyond me.