{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012333965844402278, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.169590643274854, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Definitions of Fraud and Misconduct Revisited

Abstract Definitions of fraud and misconduct are not ethically neutral, and they have implications for the process and procedure of investigations into cases of suspected fraud and misconduct. The aim of this paper is to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of some current definitions of fraud and misconduct, including disjunctive and parallel sets of definitions. Possible purposes of these definitions are explained. Since intention to deceive is difficult to prove, and word often stands against word, allegations may be difficult or impossible to substantiate. If the accused person is not proven guilty, this may be perceived as a signal to the research community that the accused was innocent - even though the work by the accused author contains many serious deviations from good research practice. It turns out that several distinctions need to be made between different kinds of fraud and misconduct, and that these have implications for how best to deal way with suspected scientific dishonesty.