INTRODUCTION: Editors of scientific publications have, traditionally, been unaware of frauds and misconduct, being more concerned with subjects associated to impact or with editorial review. But, in the last few years they have been checking and reporting that there is misconduct in the scientific field, and furthermore, it is not uncommon. METHOD: The most common misconduct of authors is reviewed. These are seen as an infringement of the conditions that a scientific work must have, and include fraud, such as plagiarism, repeated publications or redundant publications. Their frequency and the perspectives from a publishing point of view are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Many editors are demanding clear regulations to prevent misconduct. Editorial review and the provision of evaluation tools for reviewers are prevention, but not infallible formulas. What is most important could be that editorial teams be aware of its existence.
INTRODUCTION: Editors of scientific publications have, traditionally, been unaware of frauds and misconduct, being more concerned with subjects associated to impact or with editorial review. But, in the last few years they have been checking and reporting that there is misconduct in the scientific field, and furthermore, it is not uncommon. METHOD: The most common misconduct of authors is reviewed. These are seen as an infringement of the conditions that a scientific work must have, and include fraud, such as plagiarism, repeated publications or redundant publications. Their frequency and the perspectives from a publishing point of view are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Many editors are demanding clear regulations to prevent misconduct. Editorial review and the provision of evaluation tools for reviewers are prevention, but not infallible formulas. What is most important could be that editorial teams be aware of its existence.