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.

We need better and more PopSci by scientists

Popular astronomy and other science articles in glossy magazines -- outreaching to those who do not care to be reached

Capably Communicating Science

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

Taking a Popular Science Approach to the Field of Attention

On Expansion of the Concept of "the Popularization of Science"

Societal impact of university research in the written press: media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium

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

Scientists who engage with society perform better academically

Who Speaks for Science?

Help wanted, scientists need apply

The dangerous misconceptions of Sir Karl Raimund Popper

Public scientists contributing to local literary fiction. An exploratory analysis

Scientific Outreach: Toward Effective Public Engagement with Biological Science

A Study on the Role Change and Evaluation of Scientist in Popularization of Science

Plea to publish less

Science education in an age of misinformation

Does it take too long to publish research?

Addressing Challenges to Public Understanding of Science: Epistemic Cognition, Motivated Reasoning, and Conceptual Change

Better nanoscience through open, collaborative, and critical discussions

Salvaging science literacy