Scientific integrity depends on ethical and transparent research practices, yet surveys reveal that many researchers engage in questionable research practices (QRPs), ranging from minor issues (e.g., unclear preregistration) to major misconduct (e.g., data fabrication). This study was previously published as a Lifecycle Journal Research Plan (Lewis and Tullett, 2025; DOI: 10.71240/lcyc.359952). It investigates how people perceive researchers who commit QRPs (investigators) compared to those who report them (inspectors), and how these perceptions change depending on the severity of the QRP. Undergraduate psychology students read three hypothetical vignettes describing an investigator who engages in a QRP and an inspector who reports it. Participants then evaluated both researchers on integrity and likeability and rated the perceived trueness of the original finding. Thus, the overall design was a 2 (role: investigator vs. inspector) × 3 (QRP severity: minor vs. moderate vs. major) fully within-subjects design. Multilevel models tested whether perceptions varied by researcher role and QRP severity. Overall, participants viewed inspectors more positively than investigators, with the difference between the two roles becoming larger as QRP severity increased. This research provides an initial look at how accountability in science is socially evaluated, and how the severity of QRPs shapes perceptions of both those who commit and those who call out questionable research practices.