Sir, The recent report on “Broader Impacts” versus “Responsible Research and Innovation” concepts is very interesting . Many scientists in the present day follow the first concept due to factors. Scientists who want to apply for funds have to follow the criteria, which are usually focused on “impact” according to the US NIH principle. The American concept of “Broader Impacts” for judging the scientific value of the work is widely used in many developing countries at present. Indeed, the “Broader Impacts” (...) concept has its advantage as well as disadvantage. Sometimes the “impact” cannot be applied to some kinds of studies that are useful but not interesting. Some novel works might present new concepts that are hard to understand and this might be limited for further referencing and this can result in low “impact”. In addition, some practitioners might try every way to get the “highest possible impact”. They might perform a misconduct to reach the aim. Of interest, man .. (shrink)

Sir,The case discussion by Rasmussen is very interesting (Rasmussen 2013). Rasmussen concluded that “argue that the precedent set by the reasoning in this case is problematic.” In fact, the final decision whether an accused case of misconduct is exactly guilty or not is very complicated. The decision has to follow the standard definition of misconduct. However, there are usually problems in decision. The question is whether the standard is problematic or the “user” or the ones who interpret and make decision (...) is problematic. There are many factors that can affect the final decision. First, the bias to decide “not guilty” is common. This might be a “false negative”. Sometimes, the accused person is a senior academic person or administrator, the bias can be seen (Joob and Wiwanitkit 2012). This is the rooted problem in many developing countries where the academic society is under standard (Joob and Wiwanitkit 2012). Second, the opposite bias can also be expected. This might be the case th. (shrink)