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.

David versus Goliath: Early career researchers in an unethical publishing system

Including Early Career Researchers in Scientific Publishing

Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

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

How is open access publishing going down with early career researchers? An international, multi-disciplinary study

Publishing Biomedical Research: a rapidly evolving ecosystem

Will technology trample peer review in ecology? Ongoing issues and potential solutions

Profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and causal factors behind their decision: A systematic review

Fostering Responsible Conduct of Research for Early-Stage Investigators: Challenges and Opportunities

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

Crossing disciplinary boundaries: An ethnographic exploration of academic publishing invitations

Purchase and publish: Early career researchers and open access publishing costs

Time to Rethink Academic Publishing: the Peer Reviewer Crisis.

Towards a more sustainable academic publishing system

Reaching and implementing the best available knowledge in wildlife biology

Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

Relationships among cost, citation, and access in journal publishing by an ecology and evolutionary biology department at a U.S. university

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

Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature

Editorial bullying: an exploration of acts impacting publication ethics and related environment

Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time?