This is section really gets me. How in the world is science supposed to rely on “not-fraud”? Sure if you fake your data you might dupe a diligent reviewer, but this is why results are supposed to be reproduced.
Anything that relies on “not-fraud” seems inherently unscientific and straight up naive.
The problem lies in areas where replication and formalization is difficult. There is certainly knowledge to be gained in these areas. Though calling the fields sciences, when the scientific method cannot be effectively applied, seems dubious.
The solution is not obvious, but it is clear that steps should be taken to improve rigor in the less formal (straight forward) bodies of scholarship.
If a large percentage of scientists were to engage in deliberate fraud, there wouldn't be any feasible way to regulate that problem away. All available resources would end up being spent on scientists investigating each other for fraud, and no actual science would get done. Bear in mind that in many cases, establishing that an experiment is not fraudulent could require more time and effort than the original experiment!
As with many other human institutions, we have no choice but to rely on most people being honest most of the time.
If you want to reproduce an archaeology paper, well, how? You can’t exactly go dig the same site back up.
If you go out as a cultural anthropologist to hang out with some indigenous tribe somewhere, and your experiences aren’t the same as the last guy, does that mean anything? How much is because you’re different people? How much is because the tribe has already gotten used to having a researcher around?
This is part of why shit like the Piltdown Man happens.
If my banking API relies on user's not trying to commit fraud instead of proper validation, then I have a very insecure API. Making a statement that your system works as long as no one tries to break it sounds almost satirical.