People regulate their public (more so than private) moral performances, not only to gain reputational or material benefits but also to internalize them as support of their positive self-regard

Because it is related to the phenomenon of moral hypocrisy, which is to “appear moral, yet, if possible, avoid the cost of actually being moral”. Put differently, people may often present themselves as moral in public while privately reaping the benefits of selfishness

It should be noted that the concept of "hypocrisy" is associated with concepts such as "politeness", "tact", "diplomacy", "double standards", etc.

I consider all this unacceptable.

Regards, Sergey Viktorovich Pushkin

Very well said Bodh Sharma.

I fully agree with Aparna.

We are morally responsible for everything we are putting into our research.

There is no need to manipulate things which is is definitely hypocrisy.

Truthfulness is always rewarded in the best way.

There are many factors that control and control the credibility of the research

It is the sober journal

Some practical research may closely resemble the article

Humans have a demonstrated tendency to copy or imitate the behavior and attitude of others and actively influence each other’s opinions. In plenty of empirical contexts, publicly revealed opinions are not necessarily in line with internal opinions, causing complex social influence dynamics. ...study to what extent hypocrisy is sustained during opinion formation and how hidden opinions change the convergence to consensus in a group. ...build and analyze a modified version of the voter model with hypocrisy in a complete graph with a neutral competition between two alternatives. We compare the process from various initial conditions, varying the proportions between the two opinions in the external (revealed) and internal (hidden) layer. According to the results, hypocrisy always prolongs the time needed for reaching a consensus. In a complete graph, this time span increases linearly with group size. ... find that the group-level opinion emerges in two steps: (1) a fast and directional process, during which the number of the two kinds of hypocrites equalizes; and (2) a slower, random drift of opinions. During stage (2), the ratio of opinions in the external layer is approximately equal to the ratio in the internal layer; that is, the hidden opinions do not differ significantly from the revealed ones at the group level. ... furthermore find that the initial abundances of opinions, but not the initial prevalence of hypocrisy, predicts the mean consensus time and determines the opinions’ probabilities of winning. These insights highlight the unimportance of hypocrisy in consensus formation under neutral conditions. .... results have important societal implications in relation to hidden voter preferences in polls and improve our understanding of opinion formation in a more realistic setting than that of conventional voter models.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0218729

Ethics provides the moral considerations that govern a person’s behavior in the conduct of any research activity. Researchers have to consider these ethics throughout the whole research process! Ethics is our overall guide that provides the quality standards for the responsible conduct of any research. https://www.bluechipsconsultancy.com/post/honesty-in-research-ethics-please

The Importance of Truth. Truth matters, both to us as individuals and to society as a whole. As individuals, being truthful means that we can grow and mature, learning from our mistakes. For society, truthfulness makes social bonds, and lying and hypocrisy break them. https://www.skillsyouneed.com/ps/truthfulness.html

The principle of honesty implies a general prohibition against falsifying, fabricating, or misrepresenting data, results, or other types of information pertaining to scientific publication. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/honesty

I do agree with dear @ Aparna Sathya Murthy.

Dear Prof. Sharma!

You raised an interesting point. In my view hypocrisy can be of benefit in stimulating new processes within scientific communities so that research could become more reliable and transparent:

James Treadwell, John Bahadur Lamb, Adam Lynes and Craig Kelly (2020). Covid-19 – Authoritarianism, woke hypocrisy and the opportunity to build a better society? 17 June 2020, Open Access © 2020 Emerald Publishing Limited Available at:

https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/topics/coronavirus/blog/covid-19-authoritarianism-woke-hypocrisy-and-opportunity-build-a-better

This is a problem that can be re-framed as a research question:

Stephen Reicher and Clifford Stott (2020). "On order and disorder during the COVID‐19 pandemic" British Journal of Social Psychology, Volume 59, Issue 3, Citation: "So what determines why and when cohesion gives way to conflict, social order to social disorder?" Open Access © 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society Available at:

Article On order and disorder during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely

I do agree with Dr Aparna Sathya Murthy ; hypocracy is not accepted in research.

Stick to your guns. Write the evidence and do not write what others want to read and hear.