-
- J Matías-Guiu and R García-Ramos.
- Neurologia. 2010 Jan 1;25(1):1-4.
IntroductionEditors of scientific publications have, traditionally, been unaware of frauds and misconduct, being more concerned with subjects associated to impact or with editorial review. But, in the last few years they have been checking and reporting that there is misconduct in the scientific field, and furthermore, it is not uncommon.MethodThe most common misconduct of authors is reviewed. These are seen as an infringement of the conditions that a scientific work must have, and include fraud, such as plagiarism, repeated publications or redundant publications. Their frequency and the perspectives from a publishing point of view are discussed.ConclusionsMany editors are demanding clear regulations to prevent misconduct. Editorial review and the provision of evaluation tools for reviewers are prevention, but not infallible formulas. What is most important could be that editorial teams be aware of its existence.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*,_underline_or**bold**. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>and subscript<sub>text</sub>. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3., hyphens-or asterisks*. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com) - Images can be included with:
 - For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote..