A series of two studies published in Research Ethics have found that most scholars believe themselves to be moral and predict they will continue behaving morally, that scientific misconduct is frequently noticed by both researchers and their managers, and that perceived publication pressure and willingness to engage in future scientific misconduct are positively correlated.

Academics face the pressure to either “publish or perish” in their research endeavors, leading to a publication culture that is not perceived positively. Some existing evidence suggests that the added psychological stress of publication pressure can result in diminished ethical decision making and engagement in scientific misconduct. This could include fabrication, falsification, or even plagiarism – sometimes termed sloppy science or questionable research practices.

Scientific misconduct can manifest as selective reporting, the intentional deletion of data points, selective citing, salami slicing (i.e., splitting the data of a single project into multiple publishable slices), guest authorships, and flawed quality assurance or mentoring.