Cases of misconducts have always occurred in science and are one of most challenges to publishing. The procedure after misconducts were investigated in a survey carried on 856 SciELO editors from Brazil and other five Latin American countries. Based in chief-editors´ answers of procedure after misconduct cases.

1. Editors of SciELO journals:
what their procedure after misconducts?
Edilson Damasio, Ph. D.
Librarian / Depart. Math. State Univ. Maringá-UEM / Federal Univ. Rio de Janeiro – UFRJ / Brazil
Objective
SciELO journals are a platform to almost thousand edited by countries in the
world. The increasing number of misconduct in science has elaborated a survey
with the objective to the process of management after the identified data
Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism (FFP), from editors of Brazil,
Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico.
Cases of misconducts have always occurred in science and are one of most challenges to publishing. The procedure after
misconducts were investigated in a survey carried on 856 SciELO editors from Brazil and other five Latin American
countries. Based in chief-editors´ answers of procedure after misconduct cases.
Figure 1 Latin America survey - collection of SciELO Journals
Conclusion
Editors directly reject the article, to ‘request a new article’ and
‘retractions’ are low frequency. In other countries, the plagiarism ‘report to
Funders ‘ is frequently utilized practice. Results show after to misconducts
are procedures, and there are differences between ‘report to Funders’ and
‘blocked new submission’ with low utilization in Brazil.
Edilson Damasio edamasio@uem.br
Figure 2 Results of frequency to procedure after Plagiarism, Data Fabrication, Data
Falsification
Methodology
A survey was answered by 209 editors at 2015, who have answered their twice
procedures after misconducts identification, a period of 2 years, on the
identification of misconducts on (FFP), at the editorial flow and post-
publication. The results on number of 6 procedures were identified in the
Research Integrity literature.
References
Steneck NH. Global research integrity training. Science, 2013 May
3;340(6132):552-553. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236373
Resnik DB. Scientific misconduct and research integrity. New York: Springer;
2013. Chapter. Handbook of global bioethics; p. 799-810. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
007-2512-6_128
Delgado-Troncoso JE, Fischman GE. The future of Latin American academic
journals. 2nd ed. Amsterdan: Elsevier; Oxford: Chandos Publishing; 2014. Chapter
16, The future of the academic journal. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780634647.379
SciELO. Scientific Electronic Library Online. 2022. Available at:
http://www.scielo.org
Wager E. Science journal editors´ views on publication ethics: results of an
international survey. J Med Ethics, 2009; 35:348-353.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.028324
Benos DJ, Fabres J; Farmes J et al. Ethics and scientific publication. Adv Physiol Educ, 2005
June; 29(2): 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00056.2004
Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted
scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2012 Oct.; 109(42): 17028-33.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
Results
In Brazil 82 editors answer the question, it was identified at the editorial flow,
and ‘reject the article’ is the highest-scoring conduct para o FFP. From data
Fabrication ‘reject the article’ 14 (77,8%), ‘report to Funder’ 2 (11,1%), ‘reject
and send a new article’ and ‘withdrawal’ 1 (5,6%). Data Falsification ‘reject the
article’ 13 (81,3%), ‘report to Funder’, ‘reject and send a new article’ and
‘withdrawal’ 1 (6,3%). From Plagiarism ‘reject the article’ 46 (56,8%), ‘reject
and send a new article’ 13 (16%), ‘retractions’ and ‘blocked new submissions’ 7
(8,6%), ‘report to Funder’ e ‘withdrawal’ 4 (4,9%). To others 89 Latin Americans
editors the procedures/management are similar to Brazilians. From data
Fabrication ‘reject the article’ 21 (75%), ‘blocked new submissions’ 3 (10,7%)
and ‘reject and send a new article’ and ‘withdrawal’ 2 (7,1%). Data
Falsification ‘reject the article’ 19 (63,3%), ‘blocked new submissions’ 4
(13,3%), ‘report to Funder’, ‘reject and send a new article’ and ‘withdrawal’ 2
(6,7%). From Plagiarism ‘reject the article’ 57 (55,9%), ‘report to Funder’ 12
(11,8%), ‘blocked new submissions’, ‘withdrawal’ and ‘reject and send a new
article’ 10 (9,8%) and ‘retraction’ 3 (2,9%).