How to fight fake papers: a review on important information sources and steps towards solution of the problem.

Scientific fake papers, containing manipulated or completely fabricated data, are a problem that has reached dramatic dimensions. Companies known as paper mills (or more bluntly as "criminal science publishing gangs") produce and sell such fake papers on a large scale. The main drivers of the fake paper flood are the pressure in academic systems and (monetary) incentives to publish in respected scientific journals and sometimes the personal desire for increased "prestige." Published fake papers cause substantial scientific, economic, and social damage. There are numerous information sources that deal with this topic from different points of view. This review aims to provide an overview of these information sources until June 2024. Much more original research with larger datasets is needed, for example on the extent and impact of the fake paper problem and especially on how to detect them, as many findings are based more on small datasets, anecdotal evidence, and assumptions. A long-term solution would be to overcome the mantra of publication metrics for evaluating scientists in academia.

A narrative review of the phenomenon of predatory journals to create awareness among researchers in veterinary medicine.

In recent years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of predatory journals has increased significantly. Predatory journals exploit the "open-access model" by engaging in deceptive practices such as charging high publication fees without providing the expected quality and performing insufficient or no peer review. Such behaviors undermine the integrity of scientific research and can result in researchers having trouble identifying reputable publication opportunities, particularly early-career researchers who struggle to understand and establish the correct criteria for publication in reputable journals. Publishing in journals that do not fully cover the criteria for scientific publication is also an ethical issue. This review aimed to describe the characteristics of predatory journals, differentiate between reliable and predatory journals, investigate the reasons that lead researchers to publish in predatory journals, evaluate the negative impact of predatory publications on the scientific community, and explore future perspectives. The authors also provide some considerations for researchers (particularly early-career researchers) when selecting journals for publication, explaining the role of metrics, databases, and artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation, with a specific focus on and relevance to publication in veterinary medicine.

Human-Written vs AI-Generated Texts in Orthopedic Academic Literature: Comparative Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: As large language models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly integrated into different aspects of health care, questions about the implications for medical academic literature have begun to emerge. Key aspects such as authenticity in academic writing are at stake with artificial intelligence (AI) generating highly linguistically accurate and grammatically sound texts. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare human-written with AI-generated scientific literature in orthopedics and sports medicine. METHODS: Five original abstracts were selected from the PubMed database. These abstracts were subsequently rewritten with the assistance of 2 LLMs with different degrees of proficiency. Subsequently, researchers with varying degrees of expertise and with different areas of specialization were asked to rank the abstracts according to linguistic and methodological parameters. Finally, researchers had to classify the articles as AI generated or human written. RESULTS: Neither the researchers nor the AI-detection software could successfully identify the AI-generated texts. Furthermore, the criteria previously suggested in the literature did not correlate with whether the researchers deemed a text to be AI generated or whether they judged the article correctly based on these parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The primary finding of this study was that researchers were unable to distinguish between LLM-generated and human-written texts. However, due to the small sample size, it is not possible to generalize the results of this study. As is the case with any tool used in academic research, the potential to cause harm can be mitigated by relying on the transparency and integrity of the researchers. With scientific integrity at stake, further research with a similar study design should be conducted to determine the magnitude of this issue.

Current situation and influence factors of scientific integrity in China: A multicenter survey.

Objective: Cases of scientific misconduct have occurred frequently, especially in the field of medical research. We collected electronic questionnaires from 1257 medical staff in 43 cities and obtained a cross-sectional data set of their understanding of scientific integrity in research. This study aims to propose recommendations for establishing a mature oversight system for research integrity. Methods: The study employed multiple regression analysis to explore the effect of different factors on the perception of four types of research integrity. Results: Female participants had a higher understanding of project application integrity than men (P < â€‹ 0.001). Participants in clinical departments had a lower understanding of project application integrity than those in nursing departments (clinical vs. nursing, P â€‹= 0.046). Participants with a junior college degree or below had a lower understanding than those who had a postgraduate degree and doctoral degree (junior college or below vs. postgraduate degree, P â€‹< â€‹0.001; junior college or below vs. doctoral degree, P â€‹< â€‹0.001). Conclusions: We found that female, medical technology department, advanced education background, and advanced professional titles were significantly associated with a higher understanding of scientific integrity in research in China.

The ethics of expert communication.

Despite its public visibility and impact on policy, the activity of expert communication rarely receives more than a passing mention in codes of scientific integrity. This paper makes the case for an ethics of expert communication, introducing a framework where expert communication is represented as an intrinsically ethical activity of a deliberative agent. Ethical expert communication cannot be ensured by complying with various requirements, such as restricting communications to one's area of expertise or disclosing conflicts of interest. Expert communication involves morally laden trade-offs that must be weighed by a deliberative agent. A basic normative framework is introduced, and concrete provisions are proposed for codes of scientific integrity.

Homeopathy-A lively relic of the prescientific era.

Homeopathy was first postulated by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796 and 220 years later homeopathy is the most popular and widespread alternative medicine. Partly, it is also part of the national healthcare and insurance systems but homeopathy is not without controversy within the medical and healthcare community. Its implausible basic assumptions, some of which contradict natural laws, do not lead us to expect that its remedies have any specific effect. In fact, there is no study or systematic review to date that reliably certifies homeopathy to have an effect beyond the placebo effect and other context effects. In this respect it must be disconcerting how widely homeopathy is applied and represented in therapeutic practice. It indeed claims a role within scientific (evidence-based) medicine but cannot substantiate this claim. It displays clear characteristics of pseudoscience [1]. This implies a lot of problems, such as misleading people and tackling medical ethics up to scientific publication practices. Furthermore, it turns out that quite a few people do not know exactly what homeopathy is, which may lead them to make wrong decisions for their personal health. This article summarizes the information about homeopathy and its problematic implications and serves as a general introduction to this topic and its unacceptable role in today's medicine.The medical irrelevance of the sham method of homeopathy has been proven with more than sufficient probability [2]. As a major testimonial, the statement "Homeopathic products and practices" of the European (EASAC 2017) can be regarded. The primary aim of this brief report is therefore not to take another look at homeopathy from a medical scientific perspective, but rather focus attention on the implications of the still continuous and largely uncritically accepted existence of this method in medical practice, in the medical scientific sphere and in the judgement of the general public.

Enlightenment of Prevention Experience of Scientific Misconduct in Extraterritorial Medical Field to China / 中国医学伦理学

Scientific misconduct of researchers causes great waste of academic resources and academic life, which is not only related to the vigorous development of a country’s scientific undertaking, but also directly affects the reputation of the country in the field of scientific research. Based on the analysis of the causes of scientific misconduct of medical researchers in China, this paper comprehensively summarized a series of mature experiences of extraterritorial medical field in preventing scientific misconduct, and put forward corresponding and reasonable countermeasures and suggestions for China’s scientific research governance from three aspects: establishing an effective governance structure based on the normative framework, clarifying the definition standards of scientific research dishonesty in laws and regulations, and formulating good prevention procedures in a healthy academic environment, in order to promote the healthy development of scientific research in China’s medical field and further promote the innovation and progress of medical science and technology.

Development of a Comprehensive Food Data Citation Standard: A Surprising Gap in the Nutrition Research Literature.

Currently, there is no standard for the citation of food composition data. This leads to the questions: how are food and nutrient data cited in research papers, and are they presented in a way that allows studies to be reproduced? To answer these questions, we performed a review of the literature and quantified the accuracy and completeness of data citations from publications (January to December 2020) in the top 5 nutrition journals as ranked by the Scimago Journal Rankings. We then performed a review of citation guidelines currently in place in other disciplines. Similar to the requirement of completing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for systematic reviews, we have developed a comprehensive data citation checklist, the Comprehensive Food Data Citation (CFDC) checklist. The CFDC checklist was developed through a benchmarking assessment against established data citation standards. Its purpose is to establish a standardized, best-practice approach for reporting food composition data. The CFDC checklist has been designed to cater to both publishers and authors, ensuring consistency and accuracy in food composition data reporting. The CFDC checklist is also available as an interactive citation generator to facilitate the adoption of consistent and comprehensive citation of food composition data and is available at https://www.nutrientinstitute.org/cfdc. Despite general agreement that accurate data citation is paramount, this is the first citation standard specifically developed to capture food composition data. Because food composition data are the foundation of nutrition research, our proposed guidelines aim to provide the field with a much-needed foundation for acknowledging and sharing data in a way that fosters reproducibility.

Publicações predatórias e integridade na investigação em enfermagem: Breve olhar aristotélico da sabedoria-prática / Predatory journals and integrity in nursing research: A brief Aristotelian look at practical wisdom / Publicaciones depredadoras e integridad en la investigación en enfermería: Una breve mirada aristotélica a la sabiduría-práctica

Resumo Enquadramento: Revistas predatórias são periódicos pseudocientíficos que cobram para publicar com revisão por pares double-blind inexistente, tendo qualidade duvidosa no que concerne a revisão do editor, correções e indexação. Tais periódicos ameaçam o cenário científico. Refletir sobre os seus impactos por meio de marcos conceituais aristotélicos sobre ética e ciência é útil para explorar a integridade na investigação em enfermagem. Objetivo: Refletir sobre as publicações predatórias na produção de conhecimento de investigadores enfermeiros. Principais tópicos em análise: Trata-se de uma análise reflexiva após revisão de literatura de sete etapas. A análise relacionou os tópicos produtividade académica e as publicações predatórias, com conceitos como intemperança, desejo, razão intuitiva e Sabedoria prática expressos por Aristóteles no livro Da Ética a Nicômaco. Estas foram debatidas como uma deformidade dos conceitos de "conhecimento verdadeiro" e "meio-termo". Conclusão: A Sabedoria-prática pode ser um caminho valioso para boa deliberação norteadora da integridade, não representa o conhecimento científico propriamente e sim opera sobre ele e sobre os resultados da investigação e sua divulgação em periódicos confiáveis.

Abstract Background: Predatory journals are pseudoscientific journals that charge to publish with non-existent double-blind peer review and editor's review, corrections, and indexing of questionable quality. Such journals threaten the scientific landscape. Reflecting on their impact through Aristotle's ethics and science conceptual frameworks helps to explore integrity in nursing research. Objective: To reflect about predatory publications in the production of knowledge of the nurse researchers. Main topics under analysis: This is a reflective analysis after a seven-step literature review. The analysis linked the topics of academic productivism and predatory journals with concepts such as intemperance, desire, intuitive reason and practical wisdom expressed by Aristotle in his book "From Ethics to Nicomachean". These were discussed as a deformity of the concepts of true knowledge and middle ground. Conclusion: Practical wisdom can be a valuable path for good deliberation that guides integrity. It does not represent scientific knowledge itself but rather operates on it and the results of research and their dissemination in reliable journals.

Resumen Marco contextual: Las revistas depredadoras son publicaciones pseudocientíficas que cobran por publicar con una inexistente revisión por pares de doble ciego, que tienen una dudosa calidad en cuanto a la revisión del editor, las correcciones y la indexación. Estas revistas amenazan el panorama científico. Reflexionar sobre su impacto a través de los marcos conceptuales aristotélicos sobre ética y ciencia es útil para explorar la integridad en la investigación en enfermería. Objetivo: Reflexionar sobre las publicaciones depredadoras en la producción de conocimiento de los investigadores enfermeros. Principales temas en análisis: Se trata de un análisis reflexivo realizado tras una revisión bibliográfica en siete etapas. El análisis relacionó los temas productividad académica y publicaciones depredadoras con conceptos como intemperancia, deseo, razón intuitiva y sabiduría práctica expuestos por Aristóteles en Ética a Nicómaco. Se discutieron como una deformación de los conceptos de "conocimiento verdadero" y "término medio". Conclusión: La sabiduría práctica puede ser un camino valioso para una buena deliberación que guíe la integridad, no representa el conocimiento científico en sí, sino que opera sobre él y sobre los resultados de la investigación y su difusión en revistas fiables.

Retos y cambios en resistas de acceso abierto / Challenges and changes in open access journals / Desafios e mudanças nas revistas de acesso aberto

Resumen Se reflexiona sobre la reciente evaluación de Clarivate a las revistas que tiene indexadas en Web of Science, a la luz de la importancia de proteger la integridad de la comunicación científica. Se mencionan algunos cambios y novedades de la revista Pensar en Movimiento, efectivos en el 2023.

Abstract This editorial discusses the recent Clarivate evaluation of hundreds of journals indexed in Web of Science, in light of the importance of protecting the integrity of scientific communication. A few changes and news for 2023 regarding Pensar en Movimiento are also mentioned.

Resumo Este editorial reflete sobre a recente avaliação que a Clarivate fez das revistas que indexou no Web of Science, tendo em vista a importância de proteger a integridade da comunicação científica. Algumas mudanças e novidades da revista Pensar en Movimiento, a partir de 2023, são mencionadas.

The impact of "Five No's for Publication" on academic misconduct.

China initiated the "Five No's for Publication" in December 2015 as a response to rising incidents of retraction. Use the number of retracted publications and their original publication time as proxies to investigate the effect of the Five No's policy on academic misconduct. We searched the Retraction Watch Database for research articles published by Chinese scholars from 1 March 2010 to 29 February 2020. The short- and long-term trends of the number of publications were presented by conducting an interrupted time series analysis in quarterly time units. Of 4,215 retracted papers with Chinese authors, 2,881 involving academic misconduct were identified. In the first quarter (12.01.2015-02.29.2016) after the implementation of the Five No's, an average reduction of 55.80 (p < 0.001) publications that involve academic misconduct was observed, although there was an increase in the trend of publications of 3.34 per quarter (p < 0.01) in the long run (12.01.2015-02.29.2020), relative to the pre-intervention period (03.01.2010-11.30.2015). The validity of these results was further supported by three different robustness checks. China's government should strengthen enforcement, promote education, and improve the scientific evaluation system to consolidate the influence of the Five No's policy and foster an ethical research environment.

Scientific misconduct: A cross-sectional study of the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers.

This study sought to identify the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers regarding different aspects relating to scientific misconduct, both overall and by gender, years of research experience, and type of research institution. This is a cross-sectional study based on an anonymous online survey, targeting researchers in the field of biomedicine. The survey comprised a first block (13 questions) covering sociodemographic data, and a second block (14 questions) covering researchers' perceptions, attitudes and experiences. A descriptive analysis was performed. 403 researchers answered the survey: 51.1% (n = 205) women, median age 45 years. The observed frequency of scientific misconduct was 78.8%. Additionally, 43.3% of researchers acknowledged having intentionally engaged in some type of scientific misconduct (self-reported frequency). The most frequent type of scientific misconduct was false authorship. The most frequent types of both observed and self-reported scientific misconduct did not appear to differ by years of experience but did differ by gender and type of research institution. In conclusion, there is a high frequency of scientific misconduct among Spanish biomedical science researchers as 4 of 10 researchers recognized that took part in any type of scientific misconduct. There are differences between the most frequent types of misconduct according to different characteristics, mainly type of institution.

[Scientific integrity faces plagiarism fabricated with the ChatGPT]. / La integridad científica ante los plagios fabricados con el ChatGPT.

Among the malpractices that undermine research integrity, plagiarism is a major threat given its frequency and evolving presentations. Plagiarism implies the intentional grabbing of texts, ideas, images, or data belonging to others and without crediting them. However, the different and even masked forms of plagiarism often difficult a clear identification. Currently, the many kinds of fraud and plagiarism account for most retractions in traditional and open access journals. Further, the rate of retracted articles is higher in the Latin American databases LILACS and Scielo than in PubMed and Web of Science. This difference has been related to the typical laxity of our culture and the lack of English writing skills of non-Anglophone researchers. These features explain the conflict experienced by Latin American students in USA where they face a stricter culture regarding academic and scientific plagiarism. In the internet era, the ease of accessing scientific literature has increased the temptation to plagiarize but this ethical breach has been countered by antiplagiarism software. Now, the so-called "paraphragiarism" prompted by paraphrasing tools exceeds the infamous "copy-paste". For instance, the innovative ChatGPT can be used for plagiarizing and paraphragiarizing. Moreover, its inclusion as coauthor in scientific papers has been banned by prestigious journals and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors because such chatbot cannot meet the required public responsibility criterium. To avoid plagiarism, it is enough to always give due credit in the proper way. Lastly, I question the ill-fated and now prevailing conjunction of blind faith in progress and zero skepticism that prevents us from foreseeing the negative consequences of technological advances.

De entre las malas prácticas que socavan la integridad científica destaca el plagio, tanto por su frecuencia como por sus cada vez más evolucionadas presentaciones. Plagiar implica apropiarse intencionalmente de textos, ideas, imágenes o datos ajenos sin dar el crédito debido. Sin embargo, las muchas y, a veces, sutiles maneras de plagiar dificultan identificar esta práctica deshonesta. Los fraudes y plagios explican la mayoría de los artículos retractados en revistas tradicionales y en las de acceso abierto. Además, las retractaciones por plagios en las bases de datos LILACS y SciELO exceden las reportadas en PubMed y Web of Science. Dicha diferencia se atribuye a la permisividad propia de nuestra cultura y a la dificultad para escribir en inglés que los académicos no angloparlantes enfrentamos. Tales peculiaridades explican el conflicto que experimentan los estudiantes latinoamericanos de posgrado en Estados Unidos, país cuya cultura es mucho más estricta en cuestión de plagios académicos y científicos. Al facilitar el acceso a la literatura científica, los avances digitales han propiciado los plagios, pero también el desarrollo de programas para detectar tales apropiaciones. Además del burdo "copiar y pegar", las herramientas para parafrasear han refinado y quizá aumentado el llamado "parafragio". Así, el novedoso ChatGPT puede usarse para plagiar y "parafragiar". Peor aún, la inclusión del ChatGPT como coautor de artículos científicos ha llevado a que el International Committee of Medical Journal Editors y editoriales de prestigio precisen que tal recurso no debe incluirse en la lista de autores. Para evitar el plagio, basta dar siempre el crédito a quien corresponda y apropiadamente. Por último, cuestiono la fe ciega en el progreso y el nulo escepticismo ahora imperantes que nos impiden prever las consecuencias negativas de los avances tecnológicos.

Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns.

Questionable research practises (QRPs) have been the focus of the scientific community amid greater scrutiny and evidence highlighting issues with replicability across many fields of science. To capture the most impactful publications and the main thematic domains in the literature on QRPs, this study uses a document co-citation analysis. The analysis was conducted on a sample of 341 documents that covered the past 50 years of research in QRPs. Nine major thematic clusters emerged. Statistical reporting and statistical power emerged as key areas of research, where systemic-level factors in how research is conducted are consistently raised as the precipitating factors for QRPs. There is also an encouraging shift in the focus of research into open science practises designed to address engagement in QRPs. Such a shift is indicative of the growing momentum of the open science movement, and more research can be conducted on how these practises are employed on the ground and how their uptake by researchers can be further promoted. However, the results suggest that, while pre-registration and registered reports receive the most research interest, less attention has been paid to other open science practises (e.g. data sharing).

Women Are Underrepresented Among Authors of Retracted Publications: Retrospective Study of 134 Medical Journals.

We examined the gender distribution of authors of retracted articles in 134 medical journals across 10 disciplines, compared it with the gender distribution of authors of all published articles, and found that women were underrepresented among authors of retracted articles, and, in particular, of articles retracted for misconduct.

Scientific misconduct: Plagiarism and non-compliance with disclosure of interest: Retrospective analysis of 1 year's submissions to Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research.

INTRODUCTION: Authors submitting to Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) must fulfill the criteria of scientific integrity (SI), including issues of plagiarism and disclosure of interest. These data have not been assessed for OTSR and we therefore conducted a retrospective study of (1) potential plagiarism rates, (2) deficient disclosure of interest (for French authors), and (3) correlation between the two. HYPOTHESIS: Suspected plagiarism rates exceed 20% and the non-disclosure rate exceeds 80%. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed 1 year's submissions to OTSR: January 24, 2022 to January 23, 2023. Articles were checked for plagiarism, using iThenticate software (Turnitin, Oakland, CA, USA), with a threshold of > 20% matching. Conflicts of interest, for French authors, investigated on the French Ministry of Health Transparence website (www.transparence.sante.gouv.fr), with non-disclosure defined by undeclared amounts exceeding €1000. RESULTS: In total, 851 submissions were analyzed. iThenticate identified 152 (17.7%) with > 20% matching to an already published article. This likely plagiarism varied (p<0.01) between geographic origins of submissions. In the 289 submissions by French authors, there were 275 (95%) failures to report amounts exceeding €1000. Combined non-disclosure and plagiarism was found in only 3 articles submitted by French authors (3/289: 1.03%). DISCUSSION: OTSR applies the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (www.icmje.org), adheres to the guidelines of the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) and the French Health Authority (HAS), and has an ethics committee. Plagiarism is a major SI breach, suspected in 20% of submissions. Also, 95% of French authors failed to properly disclose their interests on submitting an article, although this declaration is mandatory in France and is an integral aspect of SI. There are also other forms of misconduct, such as failure to comply with the French "Jardé" law on research involving human subjects, failure to obtain review board approval, unjustified claims to authorship or deficient archiving, that were not analyzed here. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall plagiarism rates were under 20% for submissions to OTSR, some geographic areas were more concerned than others. Also, despite reminders by the editorial board, only 5% of French authors made full disclosures; this is a major breach of SI, requiring correction on the part of French authors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; retrospective study.

Estudio mediante cuestionarios anónimos de las fallas en la integridad científica del personal de investigación latinoamericano, 2001-2020

el objetivo de este trabajo es analizar fallas a la integridad científica por parte de personal de investigación latinoamericano. Metodología: se realizaron cuestionarios anónimos y voluntarios después de tratar este tema en 121 cursos de redacción científica / taller de tesis dictados en Latinoamérica, sobre todo en Argentina, durante 20 años (2001-2020). Resultados: las 2064 respuestas válidas mostraron que un 60 % tenía cinco o más años de egreso, 48,6 % señalaron coautoría indebida y 28,9 % que su nombre fue omitido de publicaciones. Un 24,9 % reconoció haber cometido alguna clase de mala conducta en su carrera. La coacción a que fue sometido para que lo hiciera fue reconocida por un 56,7 %. El 60,7 % de las 512 personas ignoraba que era un error. La coautoría indebida fue la mala conducta más frecuente (46 %), seguida de plagio y falseamiento de datos. En relatos conocidos de primera mano se destacan: publicación en salamín, duplicación y robo de datos, así como soborno y manipulación de imágenes. Ninguna de las personas que tomaron cursos previos de formación en bioética (0/560) cometieron motu propio actos inadecuados. Conclusión: el personal científico comete un porcentaje relativamente elevado de fallas a la integridad científica; impartir cursos de integridad científica tiene un fuerte rol en el autocontrol para evitarlas.

Objective: This work aims to analyze failures in scientific integrity on the part of Latin American research personnel. Methodology: anonymous and voluntary questionnaires were carried out after dealing with this topic in 121 scientific writing courses/thesis workshops in Latin America, mainly in Argentina, for 20 years (2001-2020). Results: The 2064 valid responses showed that 60% had five or more years of graduation, 48.6% indicated improper co-authorship, and 28.9% that their name was omitted from publications. 24.9% acknowledged having omitted their name from publications. Some 24.9% acknowledged having committed some misconduct in their career. The coercion to which he was subjected to do so was recognized by 56.7%. 60.7 % of the 512 people were unaware that it was a mistake. Misconduct was the most frequent misconduct (46 %), followed by plagiarism and misrepresentation of data. In first-hand accounts, salami publication, data duplication, theft, bribery, and image manipulation stand out. None of the persons who took previous bioethics training courses (0/560) committed inappropriate acts of their own accord. Conclusion: scientific personnel commits a relatively high percentage of scientific integrity failures; providing scientific integrity courses has a decisive role in self-monitoring to avoid them.

Objetivo: analisar falhas na integridade científica por parte de equipe de pesquisa latino- -americana. Metodologia: foram analisados questionários anônimos e voluntários depois de tratar esse tema em 121 cursos de redação científica/oficina de tese ministrados na América Latina, principalmente na Argentina, durante 20 anos (2001-2020). Resultados: as 2.064 respostas válidas mostraram que 60 % tinham cinco ou mais anos de formados, 48,6 % indicaram coautoria indevida e 28,9 % que seu nome foi omitido de publicações. 24,9 % reconheceram ter cometido alguma classe de mau comportamento em sua carreira. A coação a qual foi submetido para que o fizesse foi reconhecida por 56,7 %. 60,7 % das 512 pessoas ignoravam que era um erro. A coautoria indevida foi o mau comportamento mais frequente (46 %), seguida de plágio e falseamento de dados. Em relatos conhecidos de primeira mão se destacam: publicação "salame", duplicação e roubo de dados, bem como suborno e manipulação de imagens. Nenhuma das pessoas que fizeram cursos prévios de formação em bioética (0/560) cometeram motu propio atos inadequados. Conclusão: o pessoal científico comete uma porcentagem relativamente elevado de falhas na integridade científica; dar cursos de integridade científica tem um forte papel no autocontrole para evitá-las.