Misrepresenting your methods is just fraud, so you will get no argument from me there. However, think about the difference between A) setting a point predictio

Misrepresenting your methods is just fraud, so you will get no argument from me there. However, think about the difference between A) setting a point prediction of your model as the null hypothesis vs B) "two groups are the same and samples were independent, etc" as the null hypothesis. In the first case there is a very small range of plausible outcomes consistent with the researcher's theory. In the second case there is a very large range (usually 50%). In the case of scenario A, messing up the experiment (either on purpose, or accident) makes it more difficult to claim evidence consistent with your model. In the case of scenario B, the same thing makes this easier. So researchers using scenario A are incentivized to be as careful and account for as many different sources of error as possible. Under scenario B, the incentive is the opposite, the sloppier the study the easier it is to get results consistent with the researcher's theory.