Scientific misconduct constrains science around the world. In education there are only few papers on this subject. Silva (2008)Silva, O. S. F. Entre o plágio e a autoria: qual o papel da universidade? Revista Brasileira de Educação, Rio de Janeiro: ANPEd; Campinas: Autores Associados, v. 13, n. 38, p. 357-368, 2008.and Krokoscz (2011)Krokoscz, M. Abordagem do plágio nas três melhores universidades de cada um dos cinco continentes e do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Educação, Rio de Janeiro: ANPEd; Campinas: Autores Associados, v. 16, n. 48, p. 745-768, 2011. are important exceptions. However, as both focus on the problem of plagiarism, others practices are neglected. Recognizing the importance of the debate, I intend to broaden the scope of analysis, inviting you to reflect on the educational field. In this paper my goals are; (1) to compare scientific misconduct’s definitions suggested by international and national agencies, (2) to argue that the triad FFP (fabricate, falsify, plagiarize) definition is insufficient to analyze the problem, (3) to criticize the choice to focus on the individual, mistakenly ignoring the role of the scientometrics context on such practices.
scientific misconduct; scientific ethics; scientometrics; publishing pressure