Research Misconduct (What It Means?): A Biblio-Profile From 1983 – 2020

Abstract

Background of research: Research misconduct, a bad dream for an original author, institute, and for a country, which discolors the name, reliability, integrity, and credibility of an organization of the same discipline.

Methods: we used this composite word to explore the documents written, produced, and published in all medium, recognized by academia's, such as articles, review articles, conference papers, editorials, book chapters, books, erratum, letters to editors, notes, and short surveys, in the Scopus-Elsevier database with 31st December 2020 as a limitation.

Results: The 654 documents contain the word "research misconduct" in ten mediums of information, and these papers were published from 1983 – 2020 at 326 places. A total of 522 documents were scripted by 1082; 2.06 authors, 114 articles shows the clarifications by departments, and authors of 18 documents not traced out of 132 papers. Social sciences and Technology (Applied sciences) are on the top of the DDC scheme's six classes. This study found authors who wrote 522 documents and 293; 56.1 single or solo authors contributed. The affiliation of authors with 46 countries highlighted the importance of this word. The United States and United Kingdome stands on the top in an understanding of the sensitivity of darkening activity, and respondent immediately through notifications and provision of guidelines.

Conclusion: The quantity of publications is the most esteemed indicator of rational productivity, regardless of the inconsistency the researchers have, every one of these archives intended to advance examination trustworthiness and develop a decent exploration climate in the canvas of research