In computer science field is common to produce papers that present algorithms that estimate something with a certain accuracy and a certain speed.
Many algorithms can clearly be tuned to have high performances, compromising a bit accuracy, or high accuracy, compromising in this case performances.
When an author proposes a new algorithm he should present empirical results about performances AND empirical results about accuracy.
Is it honest to present result about performances obtained with the algorithm tuned to be fast (and less accurate), and results about accuracy with the algorithm tuned to be precise (and slow)?
It would be dishonest to do this without mentioning that the algorithm was tuned differently. You ought to specify what the tuning changed and how this affects the results of the algorithm.
You should also list accuracy results for the fast algorithm and speed results for the accurate algorithm. (Your probably also want some numbers for middle of the road tuning too). Not listing the "bad" results isn't dishonest, but it's bad science. If you didn't include these numbers, I'd expect your reviewers to bring it up and ask for them.