On the publishing aspect of the question, another factor is the role of academic journal publishers themselves. I'm sure they didn't set out to promote fraud, or that they have any ideological skin in the game, but about 25 years ago a few well-financed publishers (most prominently Taylor & Francis and Elsevier) began hoovering up lots of smaller journals and publishers, imposing uniform working practices across them to drive up their profit margins in ways that led directly to a deterioration of quality in the end results. Copy-editing ceased to be about an intelligent engagement with the text (encompassing fact-checking and querying weak argumentation as well as the nuts and bolts of applying a house style on questions of spelling, capitalization, italicization etc) and instead became a limited and mechanical process whose hourly rate of pay was squeezed ever lower and lower. In 2007 T&F's copy-editing scale assumed a throughput of 3,000 words per hour -- already more like a proofreading speed and double what could be expected of anything that deserves to be called "editing" -- for the princely sum of £12 per hour. Fifteen years later, and not only had the actual £ per hour rate not changed (so no accounting for inflation), but to add insult to injury, they now assumed a throughput of 4,000 words per hour. Given that anyone knowledgeable and conscientious is actually working at about 1,500 words per hour, you would actually be making £4.50 per hour, well below minimum wage for even the most unskilled manual labour, let alone a job that, if done properly, requires skill, a tertiary education, tact, experience, and specialized knowledge in several areas.

The end-result has been a collapse in the quality of published articles because, quite apart from any failures of peer review, the production process now longer has the safety mechanisms to spot fraudulent or even simply ineptly written articles. Journal copy-editing is no longer done by subject specialists or even native speakers of the publication language. And all because publishing, which used to be considered a "gentlemanly" pursuit for those motivated by a love of the printed word, was taken over by large corporations so that decisions affecting the editorial quality of the end-result began to be taken by financial officers, driven to maximize shareholder value, who had no conception of the editorial processes their decisions were compromising.