Abstract: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.

Please, no more scientific journals! The strategy of the scientific publication system

Plea to publish less

Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies

Loss of sustainability in scientific work

Towards a more sustainable academic publishing system

The Risks of Scientific Gerontocracy

Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability

The pressure to publish pushes down quality

The strain on scientific publishing

Scientific journals should be transformed into science storytellers to improve their visibility

Beyond Journals and Peer Review: Towards a More Flexible Ecosystem for Scholarly Communication

The changing roles of scientific journals

Games Academics Play and Their Consequences: How Authorship, H-Index and Journal Impact Factors Are Shaping the Future of Academia

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

Accelerating the pace of discovery by changing the peer review algorithm

Sustainable development of scientific journals from the perspective of ecology

Publish and Perish: Why the Current Publication and Review Model is Killing Research and Wasting Your Money.

Productive scientists are associated with lower disruption in scientific publishing

Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences-and one common cause

And, not or: Quality, quantity in scientific publishing

Our future, we decide: five ways to reform the scientific publication process