The whole point of a peer review system is to detect fraud. If these bullshit papers got published, who knows how many of the other papers are of equal quality.
They can't verify that the data collected actually was collected without literally watching over the shoulder of the researcher while the researcher was collecting it, which is obviously not feasible. A researcher actively trying to deceive the reviewer with fake data but with a good method for collecting that data and analysis of the data that would be correct if the data were real is not something that should be caught by a reviewer. That should be caught by someone reproducing the research after publication.
I would submit that "fake research" is, in fact, bad research.
Instead I rely on the fact that the community will attempt to integrate these ideas after publication and arrive at the conclusion that the paper was garbage.
The Wikipedia article on peer review says "Peer review...occasionally detects fraud, but is not designed to do so."[1]
The article cites a Nature article that says "Peer review is not currently designed to detect deception, nor does it guarantee the validity of research findings. It should, however, identify flaws in the design, presentation, analysis and interpretation of science and provide prompt, detailed, constructive criticism to improve research."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
[2] https://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05007....