In the Canadian humanities and social sciences (HSS) space, the issue of academic misconduct remains largely underdocumented and, officially, almost nonexistent. Institutional reports and public databases reveal very few cases involving faculty members. This statistical rarity does not necessarily signify the absence of misconduct, but rather a difficulty in recognizing, reporting, and sanctioning it.

A first observation is the almost total absence of retractions in Canadian HSS scholarly journals. While in biomedical or natural sciences, retractions have become a relatively common correction mechanism, flawed HSS publications are rarely withdrawn. This contributes to maintaining the illusion of a field free from misconduct, even though problematic practices exist.

Second observation: discussions about academic integrity in HSS are often framed as issues related to the student body. Universities emphasize policies against plagiarism or exam cheating, but these measures primarily target students. Faculty members remain largely absent from these public debates, which reinforces the idea that misconduct is a matter of training rather than scholarly production.

Third observation: there exists a genuine culture of omerta among HSS professors. Cases of misconduct are rarely reported, for fear of retaliation, ideological polarization, or weakening of research networks. This culture of silence protects offending individuals and prevents the community from collectively acknowledging the problems.

Yet forms of misconduct in publishing are known:

• Plagiarism: appropriation of texts or ideas without attribution.
• Self-plagiarism: reuse of one's own published work without disclosure, creating an illusion of novelty.
• Falsification of results: manipulation or invention of data to support a hypothesis.
• Deliberate omissions: erasure of sources or competing contributions to strengthen a position.

These practices, although rarely officially sanctioned in HSS in Canada, undermine the credibility of research and fuel implicit distrust. They show that academic integrity cannot be reduced to merely monitoring students: it must also concern professors and publishers, who are the guardians of knowledge quality.

Ultimately, academic misconduct in HSS in Canada is a hidden phenomenon. The absence of retractions and the focus on students mask a more complex reality, where the culture of silence prevents the recognition of wrongdoing. Breaking this omerta is an essential condition for preserving the credibility and vitality of research in the humanities and social sciences. (M. C.).