I'm gonna push back on that idea a little. Firstly, this was an academic scandal, with an eye toward industry. But more to the point, I have worked in academia and private industry both fairly extensively, and I've found that private industry generally does more rigorous science (though often not as exciting). The caveat is that I work in biotech, so I don't know how that relates to physics. I would imagine it's not so different, though, because the incentive structures dictate everyone's behavior (but to be fair, biology experiments are notoriously opaque and hard to reproduce even when the hypothesis is rock solid, so there's a lot more room for obfuscation than in a harder experimental science).

In academia the financial incentives come from grants, which generally result from publications, which generally result from high impact discoveries. So the incentive boils down to "make high impact discovery."

In industry the incentive is to move product, and moving product doesn't happen if the product doesn't work. The product won't work if the science behind it is faulty. So the incentive is to weed out bad science, and only pursue the most reproducible work. This leads to a relative lack of risk taking, but generally more faith that what comes out of it is solid.

I can tell you from years of experience that the attitude in academia is "defend this at all costs" and in industry it's "kill this at all costs". Totally different mentalities. But again this is biotech. I realize fully that not all industries follow this trend, especially, say, venture-backed tech. I would imagine that the academic side of tech is way more upstanding than the industry side, but that's a hunch based on little-to-no first hand knowledge.