In ISBE Newsletter (Supplement to Behavioral Ecology)Volume 17, issue 2 fall/winter 2005 Ken Otter, Newsletter Editor writes among others in Editorial: "this issue also contains an article on scientific misconduct that builds on the commentary by Montgomerie and Birkhead published in the previous Newsletter (ISBE Newsletter 17: 16-24). In his article "Improving the processing of scientific misc...

The commercialization of research and the ever changing scientific environment has led scholars to shift the focus from promoting research integrity to regulating misconduct. As a result, most literature explains research integrity in terms of avoidance of misconduct. The purpose of the paper is to stimulate reflection and discussion on research integrity and research misconduct. This article e...

Journalists who cover scientific research, including chemistry research, have an obligation to report on alleged cases of research misconduct when knowledge of these surface. New Government definitions of research misconduct, beginning in the late 1990s with the Clinton Administration, have helped scientists, policymakers, as well as journalists sort out and make sense of alleged research misco...

This article draws on research traditions and insights from Criminology to elaborate on the problems associated with current practices of measuring scientific misconduct. Analyses of the number of retracted articles are shown to suffer from the fact that the distinct processes of misconduct, detection, punishment, and publication of a retraction notice, all contribute to the number of retractio...

Biochemia Medica has just established the Research integrity editor who will act as the Editorial team member responsible for all matters related to the various aspects of scientific misconduct. The major reason for this is the increasing number of various types of scientific misconduct in manuscripts submitted to our Journal. Research integrity editor will: a) strive to continuously raise awar...

Conflict of interest: none. In an editorial on scientific misconduct, Glina points out two important issues: the pressure to publish for attainment of academic positions, and the difficulty of detecting fraud in scientific research(1). The editorial agrees with our experience in Russia, where no articles have been retracted so far. During the 1990s, detection of scientific misconduct seemed to ...

This study provides current data on key questions about retraction of scientific articles. Findings confirm that the rate of retractions remains low but is increasing. The most commonly cited reason for retraction was research error or inability to reproduce results; the rate from research misconduct is an underestimate, since some retractions necessitated by research misconduct were reported a...