That only confirms a very small subset of fraud. There are many ways to do scientific fraud that will yield internally consistent papers that pass replication a

That only confirms a very small subset of fraud. There are many ways to do scientific fraud that will yield internally consistent papers that pass replication as practiced today. An example is papers which claims of the form, "We proved X by doing Y" where Y is a methodology that isn't derived from and can't prove X. This sort of paper will replicate every time because if you re-derive a correct methodology the original authors say you didn't really replicate their study and your work should be ignored, but if you use their broken methodology you'll just give an intellectually fraudulent paper the stamp of replication approval. This kind of problem is actually much more widespread than work that looks scientific but in which the data is faked.