One of the PLoS editors has a vocal report on a recent meeting “Why accurate reporting is an ethical duty“. When dealing here with a misconduct case, I had the impression that many colleagues as well as some other editors think of “a minor sin”. Yes, this may be just one step of the Nylenna-Simonsen-Misconduct-Diagram, however, Barbour cites Mainland
incompleteness of evidence is not merely a failure to satisfy a few highly critical readers. It not infrequently makes the data that are presented of little or no value.
Does “not infrequently” mean “frequently”? Yes, yea.