What do null fields tell us about fraud risk?

Summary: Efforts to improve scientific integrity must grapple with both questionable research practices that fall within the current "rules of the game" and outright misconduct. Survey and audit data suggest disturbing lower bounds for misconduct, and suggest the possibility of rates high enough to meaningfully distort readings of the scientific literature. The problem could be worse for "null fields" studying nonexistent effects, and for studies that seemingly have top methodological standards. I discuss this analysis in the context of cold fusion and parapsychology, commonly thought to be null fields. These fields may be more at risk of fraud than others, but may also provide a warning about the potential for misconduct in more conventional domains.