The history of scientific misconduct already began a long time ago, when Ptolemy used Hipparchus' data without recognizing it; Galileo Galilei, the founder of the scientific method, appears to have relied more on thought experiments rather than empirical experiments (Werner-Felmayer, 2010). In the modern world, the integrity of scientists and scientific research is threatened when the discovery of scientific misconduct makes headlines. Headlines such as “Korean Scientist Allegedly Admitted to Fabricating Products in Cloning Study” (Wade, 2005), “Dutch University Fires Social Psychologist Over Falsified Data” (Enserink, 2011), “Researcher in Cloning Harvard psychology committed fraud, US investigation concludes” (Carpenter, 2012) and “Leading Canadian scientist and award-winning student caught in ‘blatant plagiarism’ of text” (Munro, 2012) really make us think: why did they commit such fraud? Before we discuss the factors that can contribute to scientific misconduct, we need to understand what the definition is as well as the types of scientific misconduct.What is the definition and types of scientific misconduct?Definition of scientific misconduct or Research Misconduct by ORI (The Office of Research Integrity US, 2011) constitutes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, conducting, or reviewing research, or in communicating the results of research. research. Three important keywords are indicated, which constitute the main types of scientific misconduct: 1) Fabrication – fabrication of scientific research data or results 2) Falsification – manipulation of materials, equipment or research processes or modification or omission of data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.3) Plagiarism – appropriation of ideas, processes, r...... middle of article.. .... from https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary -savine-adam-cWade, N. (December 16, 2005) Korean scientist says he admits manufacturing in cloning study. The New York Times. Retrieved March 5, 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/science/16clone.html. Werner-Felmayer, G. (2010) Rethinking the meaning of being a scientist – the role of scientific advice of integrity and some reflections on scientific culture. Med Law, Vol 29, pp 329-339 Wislar, J.S., Flanagim, A., Fontanarosa, P.B. and DeAngelis, C. (2011) Honorary and shadow authorship in high-impact biomedical journals: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ 2011; 343: d6128Zielinska, E. (2013) Cancer Institute frustrated by leadership. The scientist. Published April 2, 2013. Accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34930/title/Cancer-Institute-Frustrated-with-Leadership/