The discussion of integrity in scientific research has been part of the agenda of many countries, especially those with higher output in science, technology and innovation. This discussion is grounded in the assumption that the growth of science and increasing technological advances should consider ethical demands for conducting research and reporting results in the global arena. In recent decades, cases of scientific misconduct in countries such as the United States, England, Canada, Germany, Japan, among others, led to greater attention to the conduct of research and publication of results.

Among the various international initiatives to address the issues of research integrity, we highlight the creation of regulatory bodies in those countries, new policies for allocation of research funding by funding agencies and changes in editorial policies of international journals. In this context, we highlight initiatives from the National Science Foundation (NSF), The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), US Office of Research Integrity, The European Science Foundation (ESF), The International Council for Science (ICSU), UK Office of Research Integrity and The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), among others. In Latin America, including Brazil, this international discussion is at a very early stage.

The purpose of the First Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science and Publication Ethics (I BRISPE) is to promote a wider discussion on the topic among Brazilian researchers and stimulate the involvement of the country’s academic community in the development of policies and in decision making concerning ethics and research integrity at the international level. The I BRISPE, organized by COPPE/UFRJ, in association with the Medical Biochemistry Institute/UFRJ, joins the efforts of UFRJ with the Brazilian Center for Physics Research (CBPF), in association with The Brazilian Institute for Science and Technology (IBICT), The University of São Paulo (USP) and the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), in association with The Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI).

In this broad discussion on research integrity, science and publication ethics, the I BRISPE aims to include Brazilian researchers from different research areas. Among the points to be addressed are changes in criteria for evaluation of research projects, authorship and contributorship issues in research papers and in the submission and review process of manuscripts in international journals.

This international debate, therefore, involves, but it is not limited to, scientists, research leaders, research administrators, scientific societies and editors of academic journals. The material below provides the context for discussions in the I BRISPE, which includes the approach to cases of scientific misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and questionable research practices.

Misconduct by postdocs leads to retraction of papers (Science, 329, p.1583, 2010).
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/329/5999/1583

Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, 2010.
http://www.singaporestatement.org/

Second World Conference on Research Integrity,
2010. http://www.esf.org/index.php?id=4479

10 retractions and counting (The Scientist, 2010).
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57449/

Facing up to fraud (Chemistry & Industry, 2, 2010).
http://www.soci.org/Chemistry-and-Industry/CnI-Data/2010/2/Facing-up-to-fraud

NSF adopts new ethics rules (The Scientist, 2010).
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55962/

A tale of two citations (Nature, 451, 397-399, 2008).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7177/full/451397a.html

Elsevier to contribute 9 million articles to CrossCheck, 2008.
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authored_newsitem.cws_home/companynews05_00953

First ESF-ORI World Conference on Research Integrity, 2007.
http://www.esf.org/index.php?id=4479

Each co-author should sign to reduce risk of fraud (Nature, 450, p. 610, 2007).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7170/full/450610a.html

Who is accountable? How the responsibilities of co-authors for a scientific paper's integrity could be made more explicit (Nature, 450, p. 1, 2007).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7166/full/450001a.html

Research Ethics: Experts ponder how best to prevent and respond to scientific misconduct as three Japanese cases conclude (Chemical & Engineering News, 85, 76-79, 2007).
http://pubs.acs.org/email/cen/html/021207094654.html

Geophysicist faces probe into use of research funds: Co-founder of European Academy of Sciences comes under scrutiny (Nature, 446, 236- 237, 2007).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7133/full/446236a.html

Research Integrity: Bubble fusion researcher cleared of misconduct charges, but doubts linger (Science, 351, p. 921, 2007).
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/315/5814/921

Research misconduct: Federal agencies handle fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism allegations differently, but all take claims seriously (Chemical &Engineering News, 18-22, 2006).
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8445gov1.html

Misconduct: lack of action provokes web accusations (Nature, 441, p. 932, 2006).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7096/full/441932a.html

Named and shamed: As accusations of scientific misconduct in China become rife, some fear persecution reminiscent of that used in the Cultural Revolution (Nature, 441, 392-393, 2006).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7092/full/441392a.html

Scientists behaving badly (Nature, 435, 737-738, 2005).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7043/full/435737a.html

Korean cloning scandal: prosecutors allege elaborate deception and missing funds (Science, 312, 980-981, 2005).
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/312/5776/980.pdf

Misconduct finding at Bell Labs shakes physics community (Nature, 419, 419-421, 2002).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6906/full/419419a.html