For multiple “premier league” offenders who are reluctant to face their misdemeanors, it is difficult to see how they could continue in the role of a researcher, and their “registration” should be revoked. Research is increasingly undertaken by researchers who cross national boundaries. The globalization of research demands greater collaboration between organizations that are responsible for ensuring standards of research integrity; the need for international standards and guidance has never been greater. During the past 20–30 years, great progress

has been Acalabrutinib in vitro made in defining the principles underpinning the responsible conduct of research (RCR) and in creating a culture of honesty and transparency in research environments.[1] Guidance documents have been developed by many distinguished organizations around the world,[2-4] and there is now an emerging consensus that the principles espoused

in these documents reflect the aspirations of the research community for the future of global research. For those in the business of promoting the RCR, it might be argued that their work is done, and that it is the responsibility of RG7204 purchase others to ensure the adoption of these principles. It is quite clear, however, that the establishment of these high-level standards of best practice has almost certainly not led to a reduction in research misconduct, although it may have stemmed what appears to be a relentless rising tide.[5] I suspect, however, that the converse may be true, as the number of high-profile cases appears to be on the increase with the emergence of a “premier league” of offenders with multiple instances of research misconduct now quantifiable quite simply by the number of retractions that have been made in their name.[6, 7] There

is a general acceptance that the competitive pressure to engage in “shortcuts” Adenosine triphosphate to enhance publication outputs or win research grants has never been greater, although the introduction of cyclical national research assessment events, as has happened for example in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, where the focus has been placed on a very limited number of high-quality outputs, may have gone some way to reduce the “quantitative” drive to enhance the personal research publication record. However, I would suggest that promoting the RCR alone may not be enough to prevent research misconduct; complementary strategies should be considered to deal with what appears to be a continuing rise in the number of reported cases of research misconduct. Misconduct in the execution of research classically includes one or more of the triad of activities, namely fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism—the so-called FFP. These are serious offenses that are often referred to as “research fraud.