Peer review pushes fraud

Reviewers frequently ask authors to produce specific patterns of results, which can create explicit pressure and a template for falsification; when fraud occurs it often looks like a cleaned version of an intuitively plausible finding because reviewers and editors reward expected narratives. The Ariely/Gino cases illustrate how suspicious data edits and duplicate rows align with the kinds of results reviewers request, suggesting a systemic perverse incentive. — If peer review is prescriptive rather than diagnostic, reforming how journals request and evaluate corrections becomes a governance priority for scientific integrity.