THE SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY CODE: NECESSARY AND IMPROVABLE

There are many definitions of scientific integrity, all of which share a common denominator: the development of good research practices that ensure honesty and scientific rigor. According to the U.S. National Science and Technology Council, scientific integrity can be conceptualized as“adherence to professional practices, ethical behavior, and principles of honesty and objectivity in proposing, performing, reviewing, reporting, and communicating scientific activities and results”⁽¹⁾. Ciubotariu highlights scientific rigor, reproducibility, and responsibility as fundamental principles for its development ⁽²⁾. Scientific integrity plays a crucial role in preventing bias, data fabrication, plagiarism, and other forms of scientific misconduct. It is involved not only in the conduct of scientific research but also in its communication and application. Unfortunately, we are witnessing various forms of scientific misconduct, including the commercialization of theses, plagiarism, data fabrication, and the buying and selling of scientific articles. The need for such documents to access certain positions or advance academically or politically—as well as the financial incentives linked to publication in indexed journals—appear to be key drivers of inappropriate scientific conduct. This problem reaches the highest levels of government and not only has individual consequences but also affects the entire healthcare system, casting doubt on the credibility of decision-making based on questionable studies. This issue even prompted the U.S. authorities to take a stand in order to restore trust in government through scientific integrity⁽³⁾. While a lack of ethics and varying degrees of corruption account for many cases of misconduct, another relevant factor appears to be the lack of awareness about the principles of scientific integrity, especially among early-career researchers. Among the types of misconduct linked to ignorance, the most common at the start of a research career is plagiarism—particularly when reproducing methodologies from other studies or writing the theoretical framework or literature review (“state of the art”) in university theses. Another widespread questionable practice in many institutions is“honorary authorship,”which may result either from an author's desire to curry favor with superiors or from superiors’demands to be listed as authors despite not meeting authorship criteria, solely due to holding managerial positions.