Behavioral Misconduct Within the Research Setting Should Prompt Inquiries into Possible Research Misconduct

What is new? Behavioral misconduct (BM), felonious or abusive acts within research settings, are often by definition segregated from research misconduct (RM); with the latter confined to instances of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism (FFP). Some have called for BM in research settings to be included under RM, and even papers coauthored by perpetrators of BM to be retracted. However, this notion is confounded by an apparent lack of a direct link between acts in BM with research integrity violation (i.e. the authenticity, veracity, and reproducibility of research data and publications). What was the approach? Here, I posit that even if BM might not be considered RM, suspicions of the latter would arise from confirmation of the former for at least two reasons. What is the academic impact? Firstly, BM might be linked to personality and organizational deficiencies that are also important for RM. Secondly, abusive and exploitative behaviors by people in power tend to promote RM. As such, confirmation of cases of BM in research should prompt suspicions if not preliminary inquiries into possible RM. What is the wider impact? BM and RM erode discipline and trust in academia. Realising that these transgressions are plausibly connected or could co-occur with or around a perpetrator of either forms of misconduct is important. Investigations could then be conducted, with sanctions delivered, in a more thorough and effective manner.