Personally, when I was reviewing papers I would always look at the code, and often try to run it. I've spotted issues before, nothing like academic fraud but mo

Personally, when I was reviewing papers I would always look at the code, and often try to run it. I've spotted issues before, nothing like academic fraud but more like "forgot to say in the paper that this value is truncated before being passed to this function". Basically the issue was often that the paper would present a "clean" version of the implementation, omitting important corner cases because it makes the paper sound less certain and therefore it increases the odds of being rejected at the first gate (by the editors not the reviewers). I did not reject papers on that basis, just asked them to add back in the hidden details, and the authors always did.