The increase in scientific misconduct in health research: impression or reality?


  • Diego Ribeiro Rabelo
  • Gustavo Ferreira Lopes Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública
  • Henrique Santana Cumming



Download data is not yet available.


Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D. The dishonesty of honest people. J Mark Res. 2008;45(6):633–44.

Vlaar PWL, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW. On the evolution of trust, distrust, and formal coordination and control in interorganizational relationships: Toward an integrative framework. SAGE Open. 2007;32(4):407–28.

Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics. 2011;37(4):249–53.

Cokol M, Ozbay F, Rodriguez-Esteban R. Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep. 2008;9(1):2.

Rode SM, Rios R, Oliveira F, Paranhos LR. Má conduta em publicações científicas. 2018;23(3):7–8.

Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(42):17028–33.

Almeida RMVR, Rocha KA, Catelani F, Fontes-Pereira AJ, Vasconcelos SMR. Plagiarism Allegations Account for Most Retractions in Major Latin American/Caribbean Databases. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(5):1447–56.

Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK. Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012047.

Yawar A. For the love of Piltdown Man. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(7):586.

Cyranoski D. Woo Suk Hwang convicted, but not of fraud. Nature. 2009;461(7268):1181.

Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: A historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1680–5.

Mazar N, Ariely D. Dishonesty in scientific research. J Clin Invest. 2015;125(11):3993–6.

David PA, Spence MJ. Towards Institutional Infrastructures for e-Science: The Scope of the Challenge. SSRN Electron J. 2011;(2):1–98.

Targino MG, Garcia JCR, Silva KLN. Information science reviewers versus the open peer review. Rev Interam Bibliotecol. 2019;43(1):e5.

Murphy SP, Bulman C, Shariati B, Hausmann L. Submitting a manuscript for peer review-integrity, integrity, integrity. J Neurochem. 2014;128(3):341–3.

Bauchner H, Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, Thornton J. Scientific misconduct and medical journals. JAMA. 2018;320(19):1985–7.

Brainard J, Jia Y. What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’ [Internet]. Science Mag; 2018 [citado em 2021 Mar 5]. Disponível em:

Ioannidis JPA. Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful. PLoS Med. 2016;13(6):e1002049.

Mesquita CT. Integrity in Scientific Research. Int J Cardiovasc Sci. 2017;2(1):1–2. Disponível em:

ICMJE [Internet]. International committee of medical journal editors; 2020 [citado em 2020 Out 26]. Disponível em:

Committee on Publication Ethics. COPE history timeline [Internet]. COPE; 2020 [citado em 2020 Nov 26]. Disponível em:

Flaquer GN, Gomes MP, Silveira L, Michels PE, Vidal I. Declaração de São Francisco sobre Avaliação da Pesquisa [Internet]. DORA; 2012. Disponível em:

Fang FC, Casadevall A. Reforming science: Structural reforms. Infect Immun. 2012;80(3):897–901.

Casadevall A, Fang FC. Reforming science: Methodological and cultural reforms. Infect Immun. 2012;80(3):891–6.

Palla IA, Singson M, Thiyagarajan S. A comparative analysis of retracted papers in Health Sciences from China and India. Account Res. 2020;27(7):401-16.

Rivera H. Fake peer review and inappropriate authorship are real evils. J Korean Med Sci. 2019;34(2):e6.

Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, Rijcke S, Rafols I. The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. 2015;520(7548):429-31.

Benedictus R, Miedema F, Ferguson MWJ. Fewer numbers, better science. Nature. 2016;538(7626):453–5.

Goldacre B, Drysdale H, Powell-Smith A, Dale A, Milosevic I, Slade E, et al. The compare Trials Project [Internet]. Oxford: Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; 2016. Disponível em:

The People’s Trial [Internet]. NUI Galway, Irlanda: Health Research Board; 2019 [citado em 2020 Out 26]. Disponível em:

Iniciativa Brasileira de Reprodutibilidade [Internet]. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto de Bioquímica Médica Leopoldo de Meis / Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro / Instituto Serrapilheira. 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 26]. Available from:

Neves K, Carneiro CFD, Wasilewska-Sampaio AP, Abreu M, Valério-Gomes B, Tan PB, et al. Two years into the brazilian reproducibility initiative: Reflections on conducting a large-scale replication of brazilian biomedical science. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2020;115(9):e200328.

Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, Glasziou P, Sham MH, Barbour V, et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(7):e3000737.

Twa MD. Scientific Integrity and the Reproducibility Crisis. Optom Vis Sci. 2019;96(1):1–2.

Long TC, Errami M, George AC, Sun Z, Garner HR. Scientific intergrity: Responding to possible plagiarism. Science. 2009;323(5919):1293–4.

Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68397.



How to Cite

Rabelo, D. R., Lopes, G. F., & Cumming, H. S. (2022). The increase in scientific misconduct in health research: impression or reality?. Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 3, e3389.



Concept Articles