Why is data falsification reported to be more usual in some fields than others?
Your quotes from the Plos One meta analysis highlight problems in clinical, medical and pharmacological, but your question is about biomedicine and psychology. The meta analysis paper found no evidence for increased rates of reporting misconduct in either biomedicine or the social sciences suggesting that those fields are not "special". The authors then present a reasonable conjecture about why the reports of misconduct in medicine might be higher


  However, as all survey-based data, this finding is open to the
  alternative interpretation that respondents in the medical profession
  are simply more aware of the problem and more willing to report it.
  This could indeed be the case, because medical research is a preferred
  target of research and training programs in scientific integrity, and
  because the severe social and legal consequences of misconduct in
  medical research might motivate respondents to report it.


I think base on the meta analysis I would argue that data falsification is NOT more usual in some fields than others, but simply that reports and sensitivity to it is more usual when a field specifically trains individuals to recognize it.