Cargando…

Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen

BACKGROUND: Today, scientists and academic researchers experience an enormous pressure to publish innovative and ground-breaking results in prestigious journals. This pressure may blight the general view concept of how scientific research needs to be done in terms of the general rules of transparenc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Alfaro-Núñez, Alonzo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9397156/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36034683
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00659-3
_version_ 1784772071998357504
author Alfaro-Núñez, Alonzo
author_facet Alfaro-Núñez, Alonzo
author_sort Alfaro-Núñez, Alonzo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Today, scientists and academic researchers experience an enormous pressure to publish innovative and ground-breaking results in prestigious journals. This pressure may blight the general view concept of how scientific research needs to be done in terms of the general rules of transparency; duplication of data, and co-authorship rights might be compromised. As such, misconduct acts may occur more frequently than foreseen, as frequently these experiences are not openly shared or discussed among researchers. MAIN BODY: While there are some concerns about the health and the transparency implications of such normalised pressure practices imposed on researchers in scientific research, there is a general acceptance that researchers must take and accept it in order to survive in the competitive world of science. This is even more the case for junior and mid-senior researchers who have recently started their adventure into the universe of independent researchers. Only the slightest fraction manages to endure, after many years of furious and cruel rivalry, to obtain a long-term, and even less probable, permanent position. There is an evil circle; excellent records of good publications are needed in order to obtain research funding, but how to produce pioneering research during these first years without funding? Many may argue this is a necessary process to ensure good quality scientific investigation, possibly, but perseverance and resilience may not be the only values needed when rejection is received consecutively for years. CONCLUSION: There is a general culture that scientists rarely share previous bad experiences, in particular if they were associated to misconduct, as they may not be seen or considered as a relevant or hot topic to the scientific community readers. On next, a recent misconduct experience is shared, and a few additional reflections and suggestions on this topic were drafted in the hope other researchers might be spared unnecessary and unpleasant times.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9397156
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93971562022-08-23 Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen Alfaro-Núñez, Alonzo Environ Sci Eur Comment BACKGROUND: Today, scientists and academic researchers experience an enormous pressure to publish innovative and ground-breaking results in prestigious journals. This pressure may blight the general view concept of how scientific research needs to be done in terms of the general rules of transparency; duplication of data, and co-authorship rights might be compromised. As such, misconduct acts may occur more frequently than foreseen, as frequently these experiences are not openly shared or discussed among researchers. MAIN BODY: While there are some concerns about the health and the transparency implications of such normalised pressure practices imposed on researchers in scientific research, there is a general acceptance that researchers must take and accept it in order to survive in the competitive world of science. This is even more the case for junior and mid-senior researchers who have recently started their adventure into the universe of independent researchers. Only the slightest fraction manages to endure, after many years of furious and cruel rivalry, to obtain a long-term, and even less probable, permanent position. There is an evil circle; excellent records of good publications are needed in order to obtain research funding, but how to produce pioneering research during these first years without funding? Many may argue this is a necessary process to ensure good quality scientific investigation, possibly, but perseverance and resilience may not be the only values needed when rejection is received consecutively for years. CONCLUSION: There is a general culture that scientists rarely share previous bad experiences, in particular if they were associated to misconduct, as they may not be seen or considered as a relevant or hot topic to the scientific community readers. On next, a recent misconduct experience is shared, and a few additional reflections and suggestions on this topic were drafted in the hope other researchers might be spared unnecessary and unpleasant times. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-08-23 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9397156/ /pubmed/36034683 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00659-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Comment
Alfaro-Núñez, Alonzo
Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen
title Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen
title_full Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen
title_fullStr Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen
title_full_unstemmed Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen
title_short Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen
title_sort deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen
topic Comment
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9397156/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36034683
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00659-3
work_keys_str_mv AT alfaronunezalonzo deceivingscientificresearchmisconducteventsarepossiblyamorecommonpracticethanforeseen