[Poor scientific behavior in communication of biomedical results].
BACKGROUND
The generically known as poor scientific behavior exists in different degrees with regard to biomedical communications and publications. From authentic fraud in the data up to the called "tricks" for curriculum fattening.


METHODS
The objective of this work is to review the works presented in the XVIII Congress of the Andalusian Society of Internal Medicine (Marbella, October 2001), comparing them with the abstracts books of six more scientific meetings and congresses both regional and national.


RESULTS
Of the 183 works evaluated in this review, 22 (12.02%) were doubled and 13 (7.10%) fragmented, in other words, a total of 35 (19.33%). The groups that presented communications were 36, and 17 of them (47.22%) carried out one or both fraudulent tactics.


CONCLUSIONS
Despite the little bibliographic reference, in our environment exists the duplication and the fragmentation of works presented, in general as a system for curriculum increase. We advocate a higher clarity and commitment in the relationship between editors and authors, and an upsurge of the aspects of punishable deontological regulation on the one hand and of the ethics or a priori commitment on the other one.
San Román Terán
C M
CM
Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Comarcal de la Axarquía, Vélez, Málaga. carlosmihca@inicia.es
Alcalá-Zamora Salinas
J
J
Guil García
M
M
Fernández Sepúlveda
S
S
Laín Guelvenzu
J M
JM
Peláez Domínguez
S
S
D001519:Behavior; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000592:standards*; D003142:Communication; D015713:Duplicate Publications as Topic; D006801:Humans; D018156:Journalism, Medical / Q000592:standards*; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D015871:Scientific Misconduct / Q000941:ethics*