>How you could conclude that p-hacking is rare based on a completely unrelated experience is beyond me. I was involved in the submission of >100 papers through

>How you could conclude that p-hacking is rare based on a completely unrelated experience is beyond me. I was involved in the submission of >100 papers through peer review processes, none of which involved p-hacking. In fact, they couldn't have been p-hacked because their novelty did not rely on any statistical analysis, or they were preregistered with the journal. I did have a run-in with 1 publication that I suspected involved academic misconduct (fabrication of experimental results), but it was a thesis so it did not go through the peer review process.