One of the things that surprised me was that she was identifying manipulated and duplicated images using her own eyes.
This could be done via software, and might catch more papers than the ~6k out of 100k that she did.
In the software world, there are tools for this, "software composition analysis". I worked at a company that got busted for violating GPL, and as part of settling the suit, all software had to be run through BlackDuck and all warning/issues found by the tool had to be resolved before the software could be released.
(NOTE: the software that violated GPL was from an acquisition)
For these scientific papers, at a minimum truth==reproducibility.
For humanities and social sciences, it could mean consensus, but in hard science it is different. You are doing experiments that produce data. If someone else repeats the experiment, they should get the same data.
In this case, no one could reproduce the results of the papers in question.
I wonder how widespread this has become. How many scientists, driven to publish, know that it is too expensive to reproduce their experiment?
I had a Professor in college who refused to meet with me behind a a close door, and we were both male. He kindly explained that he picked this up from a former professor of his. He wanted zero possibility of a student accusing him of sexual misconduct. At the time I thought it was a bit strange, but I agreed and left the door open. 20 years later, it doesn't sound so strange anymore.
How you treat the "other" is the measure of a low trust society. Murder is wrong and not tolerated within the clan, but violence towards the "other" is ignored and in some cases encouraged.
Yes, there are hate crimes in America but they make the news and promoted to the FBI. This helps build trust.
But reproducing studies could be live-streamed without a problem.