"In
Sweden, a national code takes 44,000 words to define research misconduct and
discuss scientific values. Next door, Norway’s equivalent is a brisk 900 words,
little more than in this news article. And it’s not just the size of the codes
that differs across Europe: A new analysis of scientific integrity policies in
32 nations has found widely varying standards and definitions for research
misconduct itself..."https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/what-research-misconduct-european-countries-can-t-agree
Check above the recent article published on Science. Especially interesting in it is the case of the Austrian PostDoc that went working in another country and who refused to add the name of a senior researcher in a paper and was later found guilty for that ethical act under the research misconduct code of that country. Be there as it may in my view and in what concerns research misconduct i think MIT´s Code provides a basic definition, that covers the most important misconduct acts, see extract below. However, the MIT code does not have anything related to false authorship as was recently mentioned about the super-scientist pandemic in here: https://pacheco-torgal.blogspot.com/2021/03/how-many-papers-can-superscientist.html
10.1.2
Definitions
Research
Misconduct is Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism in Research
Activities or Deliberate Interference. It does not include honest error
or differences of opinion.
Fabrication is making up data or results and
recording or reporting them.
Falsification is manipulating research materials,
equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the
research is not accurately represented in the Research Record.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another
person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
Deliberate Interference is intentionally causing
material harm to the research or scholarly work of others, and may include
damaging or destroying the property of others, such as research equipment or
supplies; disrupting active experiments; or altering or deleting products of
research, including data.
PS - In a recent article published in The Economist about the conviction of the former French President Nicolas Sarkozy one can read that "the judge said that the ruling was based on "faisceau d´indices" (a body of indications), not proof" so why aren´t publishers convicting/retracting the papers of those super-scientists who "grossly unethically" have put their name on several thousand publications based on a body on indications also ?
