Researcher misconduct

• Plagiarism: Plagiarism is an unethical practice that involves presenting someone else's work, ideas, or words as your own without giving them proper credit.

• Self-plagiarism: It is also referred as text recycling, is the act of an author reusing portions of their previously published work in a new publication without citing the original source. This practice can mislead readers into thinking that the content is entirely new, when in fact it is recycled from earlier works.
• Duplicate publication: It occurs when an author republishes the same article, possibly with different co-authors, in various journals or even twice in the same journal, sometimes years apart. This practice can lead to numerous negative consequences including artificially enhancing a researcher's contributions, muddling the scientific record with repetitive data, and potentially violating copyright agreements.
• Parallel submission: Same paper submitted to two or more journals simultaneously. It is unethical because it is burden on academic community.
• Data fabrication: It is a serious and unethical misconduct that distorts the scientific record with false information. This dishonest practice gives the perpetrator an unfair advantage over peers who report accurate data.
• Image manipulation: It is when authors alter images with the specific intention of misrepresenting their interventions, methods, or findings. It is a form of data fabrication. Image manipulation is unethical as: it reduces the integrity of the scientific record; perpetrators might unfairly benefit at the expense of researchers who report their findings honestly; it reduces the reproducibility of researc.
• Incremental publication: Also known as salami slicing is when an author takes one piece of research, and rather than publishing a single report, they slice it up into several reports, each of which only contributes a small amount to the scientific record.

Reviewer misconduct

Racial/ethnic bias occurs when reviewers unintentionally favour or disadvantage authors based on their racial or ethnic background. This bias can be subtle but impactful:

• Confidentiality: Agreeing to review a manuscript implies a confidentiality agreement, prohibiting sharing the manuscript with others, except co-reviewers, or using the information for competitive advantage. If the manuscript's content could give you a significant competitive edge, it likely constitutes a conflict of interest, and you should recuse yourself from reviewing it.

• Reviewer self-citations: A proficient peer reviewer may recommend authors to cite pertinent, yet omitted works, fostering a richer, current, and accurate reference list. However, it becomes unethical when reviewers exploit this influence to unnecessarily increase their citation count by urging authors to cite their irrelevant works, a practice known as reviewer self-citation. Distinguishing appropriate from unethical self-citation can be challenging; while suggesting a few of one's own relevant works is acceptable.