The data produced by the scientific community impacts on academia, clinicians, and the general public; therefore, the scientific community and other regulatory bodies have been focussing on ethical codes of conduct. Despite the measures taken by several research councils, unethical research, publishing and/or reviewing behaviours still take place. This exploratory study considers some of the current unethical practices and the reasons behind them and explores the ways to discourage these within research and other professional disciplinary bodies. These interviews/discussions with PhD students, technicians, and academics/principal investigators (PIs) (N=110) were conducted mostly in European higher education institutions including UK, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Czech Republic and Netherlands.

Through collegiate discussions, sharing experiences and by examining previously published/reported information, authors have identified several less reported behaviours. Some of these practices are mainly influenced either by the undue institutional expectations of research esteem or by changes in the journal review process. These malpractices can be divided in two categories relating to (a) methodological malpractices including data management, and (b) those that contravene publishing ethics. The former is mostly related to “committed bias”, by which the author selectively uses the data to suit their own hypothesis, methodological malpractice relates to selection of out-dated protocols that are not suited to the intended work. Although these are usually unintentional, incidences of intentional manipulations have been reported to authors of this study. For example, carrying out investigations without positive (or negative) controls; but including these from a previous study. Other methodological malpractices include unfair repetitions to gain statistical significance, or retrospective ethical approvals. In contrast, the publication related malpractices such as authorship malpractices, ethical clearance irregularities have also been reported. The findings also suggest a globalised approach with clear punitive measures for offenders is needed to tackle this problem.

科学界产生的数据会对学术界，临床医生和公众产生影响；因此，科学界和其他监管机构一直将重点放在道德行为守则上。尽管有多个研究委员会采取了措施，但仍在进行不道德的研究，发布和/或审查行为。这项探索性研究考虑了当前的一些不道德行为及其背后的原因，并探索了在研究和其他专业学科机构中劝阻这些行为的方法。这些与博士生，技术人员以及学者/主要研究人员（PI）（N = 110）的访谈/讨论主要是在欧洲高等教育机构中进行的，包括英国，意大利，爱尔兰，葡萄牙，捷克共和国和荷兰。

通过大学讨论，分享经验以及检查以前发布/报告的信息，作者确定了几种报告较少的行为。这些实践中的一些主要受到研究自尊的过高机构期望或期刊审阅过程的变化的影响。这些不当行为可以分为两类，它们涉及（a）方法不当行为，包括数据管理，以及（b）违反出版道德的行为。前者主要与“承诺偏差”有关，作者通过这种方式有选择地使用数据来适应他们自己的假设，方法上的不当行为与选择不适合预期工作的过时协议有关。尽管这些通常是无意的，故意操纵的发生率已经报告给该研究的作者。例如，在没有正面（或负面）对照的情况下进行调查；但包括先前研究中的这些。其他方法上的不当行为包括为获得统计意义而进行的不公正重复，或追溯性的道德认可。相反，也已经报道了与出版物有关的不当行为，例如作者身份不当行为，道德规范违规行为。调查结果还表明，需要采取一种全球化的方法，对罪犯采取明确的惩罚措施，以解决这一问题。或追溯性的道德批准。相反，也已经报道了与出版物有关的不当行为，例如作者身份不当行为，道德规范违规行为。调查结果还表明，需要采取一种全球化的方法，对罪犯采取明确的惩罚措施，以解决这一问题。或追溯性的道德批准。相反，也已经报道了与出版物有关的不当行为，例如作者身份不当行为，道德规范违规行为。调查结果还表明，需要采取一种全球化的方法，对罪犯采取明确的惩罚措施，以解决这一问题。