> So while many might know about, nobody dares say a thing. Maybe, but it's more likely that compiling solid evidence for fraud is just far too resource intens

> So while many might know about, nobody dares say a thing. Maybe, but it's more likely that compiling solid evidence for fraud is just far too resource intensive and there is no reward for replication--especially negative replication. And committing the fraud is far too tempting--you got your needed publication for tenure, and you're mostly safe as long as nobody accidentally makes your paper the cornerstone for something that becomes famous. As for peers, you can spend your time moving your own ideas forward, or you can take a detour to prove one particular important researcher's ideas wrong. It's pretty clear which is going to be more beneficial to your career. As the article points out, this was triggered by some short sellers looking to make a buck--not anybody in the field itself.