Although identifying outright fraud is important, I think collectively the bigger, more systemic damage is done by other things that are more subtle: material that falls in a gray area (of questionable research practices, or even less obvious than that), studies that repeat what is obvious at some point (and I don't mean replication per se, which is important, but something more basic than that), the way credit is asserted and inferred, and so forth and so on.

Identifying fraud is critical but I worry a bit that baserates of such statistics get processed as an estimate of "what proportion of science is problematic", when the problems are broader than that.