Introduction

In my homeland country, in the mid 90s there was a general election and according to a particular popular pole and surveys a certain political party would have won a landslide election victory. To everyone's surprise, they lost the election badly. This goes to show that biasness/unreliable data is known to throw things out of perspective and give people false hope. The results of that particular election caused rioting for several weeks. Once this phenomenon comes into the picture of any questionnaire the findings can create profound negative impact. The most frequent and important ways of misconduct in scientific research are falsifying results, plagiarize and over-interpretation. Motives are prestige, money, pressure of time and conflict of interests. The "publish or perish" phenomenon and the sometimes difficult attainable deadlines play an important role. Furthermore, there is a "gray-zone" in which clinical scientific researchers are influenced particularly by the pharmaceutical industry, leading to the writing of tendentious publications. (Verh K Acad Geneeskd Belg. 2004). Over the last 25 years, a small but growing body of research on research behavior has slowly provided a more complete and critical understanding of research practices, particularly in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. The results of this research suggest that some earlier assumptions about irresponsible conduct are not reliable, leading to the conclusion that there is a need to change the way we think about and regulate research behavior. This paper begins with suggestions and support for more precise definitions of the terms “responsible conduct of research,” “research ethics,” and “research integrity.” It then summarizes the findings presented in some of the more important studies of research behavior, looking first at levels of occurrence