Yes, I agree with you here about referee's role, but not about authors role. It is necessary but not sufficient to explain methodology so anybody could repeat it. It is necessary also that if repeated the measurement from the paper, the same results are obtained. The one of many reasons is also so that other people do not have to repeat often expensive measurements.

In science there is no such thing as "independent confirmation". The whole point of publishing an academic scientific paper is to have an independently obtained results that are claimed in the paper. Imagine only that we have to "independently check" results obtained in particle accelerators.

Recall how the "neutrinos faster than speed of light" claim ended: not by imaginary independent checks but by finding the error in measurement, which, among other things, saved work and money of people to further the research in the direction that is now very likely would have led nowhere. If someone is still crazy enough to study speed of neutrinos in order to prove that they are faster than light and then finds that they are indeed faster than light, well that still would not make the previous measurements correct.
How about claims? Would that not confirm at least the claims of the former paper? Yes, but the science is not about claiming claims.

I disagree, and this has to do also with the referee's role: one of the reason the referees are not supposed to confirm or falsify results of the paper they refer is exactly because it is understood and expected that the authors have tried to do so themselves, to the extent that the field is requiring.

So from my responses so far now is hopefully crystal clear why your approach to doing science and the view of the role of scientific journals is not only non-scientific, but also socially dangerous.

It is nevertheless a measurement of bad science. If I retract a paper because I spotted after publication an honest error that invalidates the claims I make in the paper, I am honest but still doing bad science.

No, the article does not say "fraud" related, but fraud related, and on the rise as well.

Since nobody measured "fraud itself", we don't know about its level, so, yes, you can formulate any hypothesis here you'd like: maybe it declines, unless it is on the rise. Given what the authors find, the first hypothesis is suspicious. Or maybe fraud is systemic, when the "true" trend wouldn't mean much even if we knew it.

Oh boy, Paracelcus occults that #1 scientific fraud is string theory.

Indeed, but you forget that the peers reviewing it are not peer-reviewers.

Newsflash to you: even in the 21st century science does not operate on 24-hour news basis.

Perhaps the first step could be to formulate the problem.

In some sciences there is so-called peer-review process. So it seems to me that scientists you mention who publish not thoroughly checked papers point also to the failure of the journals you don't mention to do at least semi-decent peer-reviewing process.

So for instance, when some not sufficiently checked results for medical treatments get published, you'd say that this is perhaps healthy?

What does this sentence mean? Bad measurement of what?

[emphasis in bold added]

Dear Anonymous Coward,

I'm glad to hear that Python lets you express yourself so eloquently!

Wish you a many successful HPC wrappings [after] writing "tedious bullshit".

That does not make sense, you are just confused.

You mean they use Python to express themselves and C and FORTRAN to program?

You do know what HPC mean, right?

Indeed, indeed.

Abstraction in sciences is generally understood as a way of simplifying things--physics and chemistry are more abstract than biology and psychology because they employ simpler concept like particles, forces, atoms compared to cells or emotions. You conflate explanation, theory and law, with result being a sort of typical soft vs hard science confusion (also when you say "further down that line" What line?)