This is what we attempt to solve by retracting articles. And from the point of view of the scientific record, there is no meaningful difference between a made u

This is what we attempt to solve by retracting articles. And from the point of view of the scientific record, there is no meaningful difference between a made up result and something that cannot be replicated. I don't think "the scientific record" is more than a metaphor that's referred to in talking of retraction. Still, if one were to imagine a hypothetical scientific record, you would have to imagine something that's inherently malleable. Even if most basic results are never going to be disproved, so fraction of even the most basic result are going to be disproved. The thing, it's unusual but not unheard-of for a researcher to come up with a result, have it not be replicated, have the result languish and then have a later researcher take advantage of the result, either show it could be replicated or otherwise explaining what was actually going on. But if the explanation for a strange result is "they faked it", then the impact of the situation is different. Moreover, non-reproducibility is a reason for retraction but I don't think it's the main reason and well know papers that haven't reproduced aren't necessarily retracted Afaik. Which is to say, I think there's still an important difference between non-reproducible for unknown reasons and know-to-be-fabricated data. Article on retraction practices and "correcting the scientific record" https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b00897 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b00897