Skip to main content

Scientific Integrity in Brazil

Abstract

This article focuses on scientific integrity and the identification of predisposing factors to scientific misconduct in Brazil. Brazilian scientific production has increased in the last ten years, but the quality of the articles has decreased. Pressure on researchers and students for increasing scientific production may contribute to scientific misconduct. Cases of misconduct in science have been recently denounced in the country. Brazil has important institutions for controlling ethical and safety aspects of human research, but there is a lack of specific offices to investigate suspected cases of misconduct and policies to deal with scientific dishonesty.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. II Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science and Publication Ethics (II BRISPE). 2012. Joint statement of the II Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science and Publication Ethics (II BRISPE). http://www.iibrispe.coppe.ufrj.br/images/IIBRISPE/JoinStatement/JointStatementonResearchIntegrity_IIBRISPE_2012_English.pdf.

  2. Azevedo, E.S. 2006. Honestidade científica: Outro desafio ao controle da ciência. Gazeta Médica da Bahia 76(1): 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boldrini, J.L., R.C. Bassanezi, A.C. Moretti, et al. 2013. RETRACTED: Retraction notice to “Non-local interactions and the dynamics of dispersal in immature insects.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 336: 250. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519313000441.

  4. Bossi, E. 2010. Scientific integrity, misconduct in science. Swiss Medical Weekly 140(13/14): 183–186.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brasil. 2002. Resolução no. 196, de 10 de outubro de 1996. In Manual operacional para comitês de ética em pesquisa, ed. Ministério da Saúde and Conselho Nacional de Saúde, 83–100. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde

  6. Cárdenas, W.H., J.B. Mamani, T.T. Sibov, C.A. Caous, E. Amaro Jr., and L.F. Gamarra. 2012. Particokinetics: Computational analysis of the superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles deposition process. International Journal of Nanomedicine 7: 5107–5108. doi:10.2147/IJN.S37825.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Castiel, L.D., and J. Sanz-Valero. 2007. Between fetishism and survival: Are scientific articles a form of academic merchandise? Cadernos Saúde Pública 23(12): 3041–3050. doi:10.1590/S0102-311X2007001200026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). 2011. Ética e integridade na prática científica. Brasília: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico. http://memoria.cnpq.br/normas/lei_po_085_11.htm.

  9. Cruz, F. 2013. Brasil está em 14° lugar no ranking mundial de pesquisas científicas. Agência Brasil, September 17. http://memoria.ebc.com.br/agenciabrasil/noticia/2013-09-17/brasil-esta-em-14%C2%BA-lugar-no-ranking-mundial-de-pesquisas-cientificas.

  10. Fanelli, D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fang, F.C., R.G. Steen, and A. Casdevall. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(42): 17028–17033. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo. 2011. Code of good scientific practice. http://www.fapesp.br/boaspraticas/FAPESP-Code_of_Good_Scientific_Practice_jun2012.pdf.

  13. Garcia, R. 2008. USP Condena físicos acusados de plágio. Folha de São Paulo, September 24. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/ult306u448257.shtml.

  14. Garcia, R. 2009. CNPq muda site para evitar fraudes em currículo. Folha de São Paulo, November 20. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/ult306u655175.shtml.

  15. Garschagen, B. 2005. Comércio de teses e dissertações atrai pós-graduandos. Folha de São Paulo, November 7. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/educacao/ult305u18009.shtml.

  16. Marret, E., N. Elia, J.B. Dahl, et al. 2009. Susceptibility to fraud in systematic reviews: Lessons from the Reuben case. Anesthesiology 111(6): 1279–1289. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181c14c3d.

  17. Mioto, R., and R.J. Lopes. 2011. Químico da UNICAMP é acusado de fraudar 11 estudos científicos. Folha de São Paulo, March 31. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ciencia/896418-quimico-da-unicamp-e-acusado-de-fraudar-11-estudos-cientificos.shtml.

  18. Miziara, I.D. 2010. Ethics in scientific publications: The double copyright problem. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 76(5): 543.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Monteiro, V. 2013. MCTI tem menos recursos para ciência em 2014. Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência, December 13. http://www.sbpcnet.org.br/site/noticias/materias/detalhe.php?id=2297.

  20. Moraes, F.T. 2013. Revista despublica artigo de cientistas acusados de fraude. Folha de São Paulo, January 5. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ciencia/1210528-revista-despublica-artigo-de-cientistas-acusados-de-fraude.shtml.

  21. Righetti, S. 2013. Brasil cresce em publicação científica, mas índice de qualidade cai. Folha de São Paulo, April 22. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ciencia/2013/04/1266521-brasil-cresce-em-producao-cientifica-mas-indice-de-qualidade-cai.shtml.

  22. Schmitz, P.D., M. Menezes, and L. Lins. 2012. Perception of scientific integrity by medical students. Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica 36(4): 447–455. doi:10.1590/S0100-55022012000600002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Takahashi, F. 2011. USP demite professor por plágio em pesquisa. Folha de São Paulo, February 20. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/saber/878368-usp-demite-professor-por-plagio-em-pesquisa.shtml.

  24. Tavares-Neto, J., and E.S. Azevedo. 2009. Destaques éticos nos periódicos nacionais das áreas médicas. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira 55(4): 400–404. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ramb/v55n4/a13v55n4.pdf.

  25. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections. 2013. International compilation of human research standards: 2013 edition. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/intlcomp2013.pdf.pdf.

  26. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity. 2009. About ORI: Historical background. http://ori.dhhs.gov/historical-background. Accessed May 5, 2013.

  27. World Association of Medical Editors. 2013. Publication ethics policies for medical journals. http://www.wame.org/resources/publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals#plagiarism. Accessed May 5, 2013.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liliane Lins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lins, L., Carvalho, F.M. Scientific Integrity in Brazil. Bioethical Inquiry 11, 283–287 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-014-9539-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Brazil
  • Scientific misconduct
  • Plagiarism
  • Duplicate publication
  • Fraud