The history of scientific misconduct already began long ago, when Ptolemy used Hipparchus' data without acknowledging it; However, Galileo Galilei, the founder of the scientific method, seems to have relied more on mental experiments than on empirical experiments (Werner-Felmayer, 2010). In the modern world, the integrity of scientists and scientific research is jeopardized when the discovery of scientific misconduct makes headlines. Headlines such as “Korean scientist claimed to have admitted fabrication of cloning study” (Wade, 2005), “Dutch university fires social psychologist for falsified data” (Enserink, 2011), “A psychology researcher from Harvard committed fraud, US investigation concludes" (Carpenter, 2012) and "Top Canadian scientist and award-winning student caught in 'blatant plagiarism' of text" (Munro, 2012) really makes us wonder, why they committed such fraud? Before we get into the factors that can contribute to scientific misconduct, we need to understand what its definition is and also the types of misconduct. What is the definition and types of scientific misconduct? ORI definition of scientific misconduct or research misconduct (The Office of Research Integrity US, 2011) is fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research findings. Three important keywords are indicated, representing the main types of scientific misconduct; 1) Fabrication – falsification of data or results of scientific research 2) Falsification – manipulation of research materials, equipment or processes, or modification or omission of data or results in such a way that the research is not accurately represented in the research documentation.3) Plagiarism – appropriation of ideas, processes, r...... half of the document ......om https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary -savine-adam-cWade, N. ( 2005, December 16) Korean scientist said he admits fabrication 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 What It Means to Be a Scientist: The Role of the Advice Scientist of integrity and some reflections on scientific culture. Med Law, Vol 29, pp 329-339Wislar, J.S., Flanagim, A., Fontanarosa, P.B. and DeAngelis, C. (2011) Honorary and phantom authorship in high-impact biomedical journals: a cross-sectional investigation. BMJ 2011; 343:d6128Zielinska, E. (2013) Cancer Institute Frustrated by Leadership. The scientist. Published April 2, 2013. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34930/title/Cancer-Institute-Frustrated-with-Leadership/