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.

How scientists should disagree

Honesty is being put through the mill

Science is neither red nor blue

Who Speaks for Science?

Hostility has a trivial effect on persuasiveness of rebutting science denialism on social media

Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature

The Science Wars: a pox on both their houses

Earning respect and trust

Scientists have emotional responses to climate change too

Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda

Constructive and obsessive criticism in science

Communicating Science: A Shared Responsibility

How Science Influencers Polarize Supportive and Skeptical Communities Around Politicized Science: A Cross-Platform and Over-Time Comparison

Science beliefs, political ideology, and cognitive sophistication.

The role of conspiracy mentality in denial of science and susceptibility to viral deception about science

Science Under Attack

The nature and origins of political polarization over science

Finding the truth in science

Private interests count too: commentary on "Science, democracy, and the right to research"

When does science persuade (or not persuade) in high‐conflict policy contexts?

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