Diogenes’ lantern and the researcher’s self-examination: scientific integrity under pressure

By Ricardo Limongi and Márcio Luiz Reis e Pimenta

Introduction

Image: Blake Cheek by Unsplash.

Diogenes of Sinope walked through the streets of Athens in broad daylight, carrying a lantern. When asked what he was looking for, he replied, “I am looking for a virtuous man.” The scene was absurd—and deliberately so. The lantern was not meant to find anyone in the dark. It served to expose what daylight alone did not reveal: that virtue is rare, even when it can be observed.

In recent discussions about the impact of technological advances on science, we have explored what happens when technology offers researchers the possibility of acting unseen. In The Ring of Gyges¹, we discussed how Artificial Intelligence (AI) creates a contemporary form of invisibility, the ability to use tools that produce results indistinguishable from human work, without anyone detecting the substitution. From a maieutic perspective², we proposed a distinction between the extractive use of AI (as an oracle that provides ready-made answers) and the dialogic use (as a midwife that assists in the gestation of ideas that already belong to the researcher). In the professor’s dilemma³, we examined the tension between teaching the shortcut that engages and the process that educates.

Each of these texts addressed external conditions, technology, the tool, and the educational system. However, there is a question we have not yet asked: what happens when the spotlight turns inward? When the scrutiny comes not from the reviewer, the editor, or the ethics committee, but from the researcher facing oneself?

Diogenes forces us to confront this difficult question. Because the cynical provocation was not directed at others. It was a mirror. The philosopher who sought a virtuous man was, above all, testing whether anyone could bear the light.

The pressure that distorts judgment

Brazilian science operates under pressures that are no secret to anyone, but whose moral consequences are rarely analyzed.

A study published in Frontiers in Medicine, Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies⁴, examined how the “publish or perish” culture impacts, in particular, researchers in emerging economies and developing countries. The authors reported practices such as the sale of authorship and the proliferation of so-called “paper mills,” which peddle fraudulent research, and estimated that between 2% and 20% of manuscripts submitted to journals may originate from such sources. Examples in Latin America, including journals later discontinued in Scopus due to “publication concerns”, reinforce that institutional pressure for productivity does not merely lead to burnout: it also creates concrete incentives for ethical misconduct.

These figures do not describe dishonest researchers. They describe a system that makes honesty more burdensome than it should be.

The “publish or perish” culture, documented since 1942, has taken on dimensions that its creator, sociologist Logan Wilson, likely could not have anticipated. In 2023, more than 10,000 scientific articles were retracted globally, a historic record,according to a post published on the International Science Council blog⁵. Springer Nature, one of the world’s largest scientific publishers, retracted 2,923 articles in 2024 alone, nearly 40% of which were from the previous two years⁶. The rate of retractions is growing by more than 20% annually, and approximately half involve fabrication, falsification, or deliberate plagiarism.

So, if we were to walk through the halls of a Brazilian graduate program, how many lanterns would we need to turn on?

The Silent Erosion

The problem is not limited to overt fraud. There is a more subtle and pervasive erosion that occurs when researchers are exhausted, underfunded, and under pressure—and not necessarily dishonest.

In Brazil, only 15% of higher education faculty consider themselves to have advanced digital competence, according to a report published by UniRede⁷, an increasingly critical issue in a context where 58% of researchers already use artificial intelligence as a work tool, but only 27% claim to have adequate training to use it , according to an article published in Nature, Pressure to publish is rising as research time shrinks, finds survey of scientists⁸ . This gap between use and understanding is not trivial. As we discussed in the text on the professor’s dilemma, there is a substantive difference between instrumental literacy, knowing which button to press, and critical literacy,understanding what happens before the response.

Erosion occurs precisely in this intermediate space. The researcher who uses AI without understanding its operating mechanisms is not necessarily committing fraud. They are operating in a zone of epistemic vulnerability that, under pressure, can become more serious. The normalization of the shortcut precedes the normalization of the deviation.

Diogenes would understand this phenomenon well. For the Cynics, virtue was not an abstract ideal; it was a daily practice, tested under the most adverse conditions. Diogenes slept in a barrel, ate at the market when that was taboo, refused the comforts that might dull his lucidity, and would certainly refuse contemporary shortcuts. When he saw a child drinking water with his hands, he threw away his own cup: “A child has surpassed me in simplicity.” The provocation was clear: how much apparatus do we need to do what is right? And what happens to our moral judgment when the apparatus fails—or when pressure distorts it?

A study published in 2025 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform⁹,analyzed this distortion in a systemic manner. The authors demonstrated that the incentives of the academic publishing system are structurally misaligned: what the system rewards (volume, speed, journal prestige) often contradicts what science requires (rigor, reproducibility, transparency). When a career depends on publication volume, the temptation to slice up results (salami slicing), inflate author lists, or take shortcuts is not a personal character flaw,it is a rational response to a set of generally poorly designed incentives.

But Diogenes would not accept this explanation as a justification. He would acknowledge the systemic problem and, at the same moment, ask: And you? What did you do? The system is responsible for the conditions. But the researcher remains responsible for their choices within these contexts.

The researcher’s self and the health of moral judgment

There is one aspect of the problem that the literature on scientific integrity still underestimates: what happens to a researcher’s capacity for moral judgment when they are chronically exhausted?

Recent data from Nature, published in an article, Postdoc depression and anxiety rates are rising, finds survey of 872 researchers¹⁰, show that rates of depression and anxiety among postdoctoral researchers are on the rise . Previous research, such as Postdocs in crisis: science cannot risk losing the next generation¹¹.had already indicated that approximately 39% of postdoctoral researchers exhibited four or more risk symptoms for serious mental health problems and that 51% had already considered abandoning active research due to work-related mental health issues. A report by Cambridge University Press¹² revealed that only one-third of researchers believe that academic reward systems work well, while 64% consider that the system fails to recognize contributions outside of publication in traditional journals.

These data are relevant to the discussion on integrity, as chronic exhaustion is not merely a problem of well-being; it is an epistemic problem. Exhausted researchers make worse decisions, review with less rigor, and accept results with less skepticism. The line between a pragmatic shortcut and an ethically questionable shortcut becomes blurred when judgment is compromised by fatigue.

The parallel with Diogenes is clear. The Cynics argued that virtue requires minimal conditions for clarity of mind and that these conditions must be actively safeguarded. Cynical asceticism was not punishment; it was strategy. Diogenes lived with the bare minimum to ensure that his judgment was not corrupted by excess, comfort, or dependence. The contemporary implication is unsettling: if an academic system systematically produces exhausted researchers, it is not only harming their health; it is undermining the conditions that make integrity possible.

The lantern turned inward

The philosophical tradition of the Cynics offers a contribution that goes beyond mere metaphor. For Diogenes, self-examination was not a gentle introspective exercise; it was a confrontation. When Alexander the Great visited him and asked what he could do for him, he replied: “Step out of the way of my sun.”

Applied to the contemporary researcher, this confrontation takes on a specific form: honesty regarding one’s own practices. It is not about accusing, but about asking. How often do we accept co-authorship without making a substantial contribution? How often do we cite others just to be cited ourselves? How often do we slice and dice results to increase the number of publications? How often do we use AI tools without disclosing or verifying their use?

The Ring of Gyges explored what we do when no one is watching. Diogenes’s lantern explores something more difficult: what we do when we can be seen, when the system, in theory, works, but we still choose the path of least resistance.

The difference between these two scenarios is critical. The Ring reveals what happens in the absence of external control. The lantern reveals what happens in the presence of insufficient external control or external control that does not compel us to exercise internal control.

Diogenes would say that the second situation is more dangerous. Because of it, the researcher may convince himself that he is acting correctly simply because he hasn’t been caught.

Concluding remarks

Diogenes’ lantern is not an instrument of accusation. It is an instrument of clarity.

The challenges facing Brazilian science, the pressure for productivity, the unreflective use of AI, the precariousness of working conditions, and the regional concentration of excellence, are systemic problems that require systemic responses. But no institutional reform can replace the self-examination that each researcher must undertake regarding their own practices.

The series of texts I have been developing in SciELO in Perspective has sought to offer philosophical lenses to illuminate different dimensions of this problem. The invisibility afforded by technology (Gyges), the nature of the relationship between researcher and tool (maieutics), the education we prioritize (the professor’s dilemma), and now, the willingness for self-examination (Diogenes) form an arc pointing in the same direction: scientific integrity is not a problem that can be solved with regulations, detectors, or sanctions. It is resolved—or at least sustained—by researchers who choose to keep the torch lit. Even when the light is uncomfortable. Especially when the light is uncomfortable.

Notes

1. LIMONGI, R. C. S.; COELHO, L. C. O Anel de Giges e a IA na ciência: quando a invisibilidade desafia a integridade. Blog SciELO em Perspectiva, 2026. [viewed 18 march 2026] Available from:: https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2026/02/06/o-anel-de-giges-e-a-ia-na-ciencia-quando-a-invisibilidade-desafia-a-integridade/↩

2. LIMONGI, R. C. S.; COELHO, L. C. Quem é o parteiro e quem é o parturiente? A perspectiva maiêutica para repensar autoria e responsabilidade epistêmica no uso de IA na produção científica. Blog SciELO em Perspectiva, 2026. [viewed 20 march 2026] . Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2026/01/19/quem-e-o-parteiro-e-quem-e-o-parturiente-a-perspectiva-maieutica-para-repensar-autoria-e-responsabilidade-epistemica-no-uso-de-ia-na-producao-cientifica/↩

3. LIMONGI, R. C. S. O dilema do professor na era da IA: ensinamos o prompt ou o processo científico? BlogSciELO em Perspectiva, 2026. [viewed 20 march 2026]. Available from:https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2026/02/25/o-dilema-do-professor-na-era-da-ia-ensinamos-o-prompt-ou-o-processo-cientifico/↩

4. VASCONEZ-GONZALEZ, J., et al. Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies. Frontiers in. Medicine[online] 2024, vol. 11. [viewed 20 march 2026] https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1405424. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2024.1405424/full↩

5. THAN, N.. The ‘publish or perish’ mentality is fuelling research paper retractions. International Science Council 2024. [viewed 20 march 2026].Available from: https://council.science/blog/publish-or-perish-mentality/↩

6. TRAVIS, K. Springer Nature retracted 2,923 papers last year. Retraction Watch. 2025. [viewed 20 march 2026]. Available from: https://retractionwatch.com/2025/02/17/springer-nature-journal-retractions-2024/↩

7. Avaliação das competências digitais dos docentes do Ensino Superior no Brasil. Associação Universidade em Rede — UniRede 2023.[viewed 20 march 2026]. Available from: https://www.aunirede.org.br/portal/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/digicompedu2023.pdf↩

8. SIMMS, C. Pressure to publish is rising as research time shrinks, finds survey of scientists. Nature [online] 2025, v. 647, p. 565-566. [viewed 20 march 2026]. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03623-2. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03623-2↩

9. TRUEBLOOD, J. S, et al. The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2025, vol. 122, no. 5.[viewed 20 march 2026] https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401231121. Available from: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2401231121↩

10. GEWIN, V. Postdoc depression and anxiety rates are rising, finds survey of 872 researchers. Nature, 2025. [viewed 20 march 2026] https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02450-9 Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02450-9↩

11. Postdocs in crisis: science cannot risk losing the next generation. Nature. 2020. [viewed 20 march 2026]. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02541-9. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02541-9↩

12. PALMER, K. Inside Higher Ed. Major Academic Press Calls for “Publish or Perish” Reform. Inside Higher Ed. 2025. [viewed 20 march 2026]. Available from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/research/2025/10/22/major-academic-press-calls-publish-or-perish-reform↩

References

Avaliação das competências digitais dos docentes do Ensino Superior no Brasil. Associação Universidade em Rede — UniRede. 2023. [viewed 20 march 2026]. Available from: https://www.aunirede.org.br/portal/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/digicompedu2023.pdf

GEWIN, V. Postdoc depression and anxiety rates are rising, finds survey of 872 researchers. Nature, 2025. [viewed 20 march 2026]. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02450-9. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02450-9

LIMONGI, R. C. S. O dilema do professor na era da IA: ensinamos o prompt ou o processo científico? Blog SciELO em Perspectiva, 2026. [viewed 20 march 2026]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2026/02/25/o-dilema-do-professor-na-era-da-ia-ensinamos-o-prompt-ou-o-processo-cientifico/

LIMONGI, R. C. S.; COELHO, L. C. O Anel de Giges e a IA na ciência: quando a invisibilidade desafia a integridade. Blog SciELO em Perspectiva, 2026. [viewed 18 march 2026]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2026/02/06/o-anel-de-giges-e-a-ia-na-ciencia-quando-a-invisibilidade-desafia-a-integridade/

LIMONGI, R. C. S.; COELHO, L. C. Quem é o parteiro e quem é o parturiente? A perspectiva maiêutica para repensar autoria e responsabilidade epistêmica no uso de IA na produção científica. Blog SciELO em Perspectiva, 2026. [viewed 20 march 2026]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2026/01/19/quem-e-o-parteiro-e-quem-e-o-parturiente-a-perspectiva-maieutica-para-repensar-autoria-e-responsabilidade-epistemica-no-uso-de-ia-na-producao-cientifica/

PALMER, K. Major Academic Press Calls for “Publish or Perish” Reform. Inside Higher Ed, 2025. [viewed 20 march 2026]. Available from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/research/2025/10/22/major-academic-press-calls-publish-or-perish-reform

Postdocs in crisis: science cannot risk losing the next generation. Nature, 2020. [viewed 20 march 2026]. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02541-9. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02541-9

SIMMS, C. Pressure to publish is rising as research time shrinks, finds survey of scientists. Nature, 2025, v. 647, p. 565–566. [viewed 20 march 2026]. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03623-2. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03623-2

THAN, N. The “publish or perish” mentality is fuelling research paper retractions. International Science Council, 2024. [viewed 20 march 2026]. Available from: https://council.science/blog/publish-or-perish-mentality/

TRAVIS, K. Springer Nature retracted 2,923 papers last year. Retraction Watch, 2025. [viewed 20 march 2026]. Available from: https://retractionwatch.com/2025/02/17/springer-nature-journal-retractions-2024/

TRUEBLOOD, J. S., et al. The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2025, vol. 122, no. 5. [viewed 20 march 2026]. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401231121. Available from: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2401231121

VASCONEZ-GONZALEZ, J., et al. Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies. Frontiers in Medicine [online], 2024, vol. 11. [viewed 20 march 2026]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1405424. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2024.1405424/full

About Ricardo Limongi França Coelho

Professor of Marketing and Artificial Intelligence at the Federal University of Goiás (UFG) in Goiânia, Goiás, and Editor-in-Chief of the ANPAD journal *Brazilian Administration Review* (BAR); DT-CNPq Fellow.

About Marcio Luiz Reis e Pimenta

He is a researcher whose research interests encompass topics related to project management, open science, technology, and innovation, particularly in third-sector organizations. He holds a bachelor’s degree in systems analysis and development, a master’s degree in administration, and is a doctoral candidate in production and systems engineering at CEFET/RJ.

Translated from the original in Portuguese by Lilian Nassi-Calò.