Peer reputation and self policing works in a system where no money is at stake.

In the old days scientific research was only done by self-funded rich people with tons of money and free time.

Nowadays science is mostly done by people whose income and food depends on getting grants.

When your career and income are at stake, why would you take the risk of opposing Dan Ariely? Only someone who was already rich could do that.

>Peer reputation and self policing works in a system where no money is at stake.

It works in systems where money is at stake too. You need a high trust, conscientous society. Doesn't mean that having one solves the issue entirely. The ocassional bad apple will fraud there too, but it wont be rampant enough to be a systemic problem.

>When your career and income are at stake, why would you take the risk of opposing Dan Ariely? Only someone who was already rich could do that.

You don't need independently wealthy scientists to expose fraud.

You just need an environment where if regular salary dependent scientists expose fraud, they're not punished for it.

If you don't have that, sure, then you need independently wealthy scientists to dare.