EDITORIAL Human Reproduction—the next phase in its development When I took up the position of Editor-in-Chief of this journal, I did not entirely know what to expect from the experience, but I did know that my role as Editor-in-Chief would last for 3 years, with a possible extension of a further 3. This has the advantages that the journal can have renewal of the Editor-in-Chief role at predicta...

The recent publication on “Scientific misconduct encountered by APAME journals: an online survey” is very interesting. As noted, ethical culture of researchers/authors and reviewers, antiplagiarism software, and technical support to detect problem are raised as important insights. In fact, not only pathology but also other medical sciences presently encounter the problem of scientific misconduc...

BACKGROUND Personality influences decision making and ethical considerations. Its influence on the occurrence of research misbehavior has never been studied. This study aims to determine the association between personality traits and self-reported questionable research practices and research misconduct. We hypothesized that narcissistic, Machiavellianistic and psychopathic traits as well as sel...

Peer-reviewed publication is a vital step in the research process and permits research findings to be communicated effectively to readers. The peer review process is designed to select work of relevance to particular audiences, to improve the quality of reporting, and thus increase its transparency (eg, allowing methods to be replicated) [1]. Although it is by no means perfect, there is some ev...

1 Gerber P. What can we learn from the Hwang and Sudbø affairs? Med J Aust 2006; 184: 632-635. 2 Altman LK. For science’s gatekeepers, a credibility gap. New York Times 2006 2 May; The Doctor’s World: 1. 3 Claxton LD. Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutat Res 2005; 589: 17-30. 4 Van Der Weyden MB. Preventing and processing research misconduct: a new Australian cod...

Retraction This article has been retracted according to the decision made by members of editorial board Journal Engineering and Sustainable Development due misconduct infraction publication ethics. After an inclusive review, specialist editors have found that authors this violated following two points ethics: Test results are fabricated; The findings previously published elsewhere without prope...

Scientific misconduct has been defined as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Scientific misconduct has occurred throughout the history of science. The US government began to take systematic interest in such misconduct in the 1980s. Since then, a number of studies have examined how frequently individual scientists have observed scientific misconduct or were involved in it. Although the ...

Discrimination and racism are deeply rooted in many aspects of the daily life activities societies. Academic medical publishing is not immune. There reports about pre-publication discrimination academic publishing. This may be practiced at different levels. It involve editorial leadership, members board unfair peer review. type reflected low number accepted publications coming from developing c...

Several recent issues of the ISI@ newspaper ‘fle Scierrtistm12 contain articles on ethical issues in science. One is a reviewJ of a book entitfed Fake Prophets: Fraud and Error in Science and Medicine,d by virologist Alexander Kohn, Tel Aviv Medical School, Israel. Tw05,6 discuss the controversial, recently published study on coauthorship by Walter W. Stewart and Ned Feder, Nationaf Institutes ...

Scientific misconduct is usually assumed to be self-serving. This paper, however, proposes to distinguish between two types of scientific misconduct: 'type one scientific misconduct' is self-serving and leads to falsely positive conclusions about one's own work, while 'type two scientific misconduct' is other-harming and leads to falsely negative conclusions about someone else's work. The focus...