GENERAL ARTICLES CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 121, NO. 2, 25 JULY 2021 205 João Freitas is in the Sport Science School of Rio Maior, Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Portugal; Dulce Esteves and Henrique Neiva are in the University of Beira Interior: Department of Sports Sciences, UBI, Covilhã, Portugal and Research Centre in Sport Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, Portugal. *For correspondence. (e-mail: jdfreitas12@gmail.com) A narrative on the fabrication of results in science João Freitas*, Dulce Esteves and Henrique Neiva Data fabrication is an act of scientific misconduct that affects its transparency and veracity. In this study we identify the main data fabrication problems in scientific research and suggest prevention methodologies. This article is a narrative review of the major articles in fabrication of results in science. The results of this review provide the knowledge that fabrication cases come from most diverse scientific fields. Currently, there is more pressure on scientists to publish. As a result, several studies now report on data fabrication in research. State laws and research ethics committees strengthen relationships to criminalize this type of misconduct that usurps state funds. This study dis- cusses the controversies and complexities of data fabrication in scientific research. Ethics commit- tees must continue their efforts to prevent data fabrication, thus contributing to scientific transparency. Keywords: Criminalization, data fabrication, scientific misconduct, transparency. SCIENTIFIC misconduct does not stop with a decline in morality and increase in competition in obtaining research funds. Instead, very well structured, accusations of scientific misconduct, stand in the history of science itself from ancient Greece to the present day 1 . Although the respective federal agencies nuclearize the concept of scientific conduct to review and disseminate research, experts have a more popular view 2 . According to the Council of Scientific Editors (CSE), scientific mis- conduct is ‘the behaviour of a researcher, whether inten- tional or not, which falls short of a good ethical and scientific standard’ 3 . Currently, there is pressure on researchers to publish frequently and in high-impact journals 4 . Bibliometric assessment is used to enhance productivity and distribu- tion of resources 5–8 . However, in another way, the finan- cial resources available for such efforts are clearly inadequate. Therefore, competition for these limited funds has created a hostile environment and is highly favourable to the appearance of scientific misconduct. The competitive level in science is changing and con- cerns that this may alter scientific knowledge are being debated 9–11 . The findings of published research are some- times refuted by subsequent evidence, resulting in confu- sion and disappointment 12 . Between 2000 and 2017, 15,000 articles were published on research misconduct 13 . Current data show that, the success rate of eligible pro- posals in the Universities for the year 2015 was only 14%; as governments decrease funding, the pressure on universities to obtain funding from other sources increas- es, including the UE and the private sector 13 . Data fraud can have four types of external effects 14 . It can damage the career of colleagues and students, who unknowingly co-write articles with a fraudulent re- searcher. In clinical cases, patients may suffer due to lack of information about the effectiveness of different treat- ment options. Fraud can slow down scientific progress, because researchers waste precious resources (funds as well as time) trying to follow the clues from dubious research. Finally, notes on scientific fraud damage the image of the field in which the fraud was committed and reduce the confidence of science. Scientists involved in fraudulent research can face adverse social, financial and legal consequences 15 . Recently, a study of 10,500 articles retracted until 2016 showed that 0.04% was retracted; the annual retraction rate was around 1000. The rate of in- crease is slowing down since 2012, and 43% of the 946 articles retracted in 2014 were due to FFP (fabrication, falsification and plagiarism) 16 . Literature on ethics in scientific research shows the frequency of production of results, increasing society’s lack of trust in the scientific community. Thus, the present study reviews the results of data fabrication in science. Methodology We began with a narrative review of the literature to ana- lyse data fabrication in science, followed by a synthesis