I-V is present in 75 percent of papers my field. When did peer review standards get so low? As long as it fits the narrative of the reviewers they seem to accept any work no matter how sloppy.

I think III would be better titled "Post-Hoc Hypothesizing," i.e. where you create (or change) your experiment's hypothesis after the experiment - clearly that is wrong. "Post-hoc storytelling" sounds like what you do in the "implications" or "next steps" part of a paper. Also, exploratory studies have different standards, right? (I've never done an exploratory study.)

In the graphic, I thought "Non-Publication" and "Partial Publication" referred to experiments, i.e. where you run 4 experiments and only report on the last one, which "worked" -- clearly that is wrong. However they are talking about data, which is a bit trickier. In some cases you can't just upload all your data onto github; it may take a while because some sponsor or corporate office needs to review it before it can be released. A researcher may refuse to release their data until they finish writing a set of papers based on it. There may also be distribution limitations, or licensing requirements related to the data. I'm not trying to defend withholding data, just that these are the problems that need to be addressed.

Finally, to extend the metaphor, the "publish or perish" mentality is this image's Satan.

What's in plagiarism?

Nvm... Clicked the link:

This circle is empty because as soon as sinners arrive, a demon carries them to another circle and forces them to suffer the punishment meted out to the people there. After their 3-year "post" is up, they are carried to another circle, and so on…