Scientific journals have been retracting unreliable articles at rapidly escalating rates in the past few years, raising concern about whether research faces a burgeoning ethical crisis. Various causes have been suspected, with the common theme being that journals are seeing more cases of plagiarism and fudging of data as researchers and editors succumb to mounting pressure to produce highly influential papers. But a key factor in the rise--the growing use of text-comparison software--may be playing a much larger role than many reports on the problem have suggested. Real rates of dishonesty could even be declining as the software improves and it becomes increasingly clear to all involved that fraud and plagiarism will eventually be caught. Even with the rapid growth in detection, there are still plenty of potential problems lurking in the archives of scientific journals. Beyond the improved detection technology, other forces could be contributing to the higher rates of retractions without necessarily indicating an actual increase in cheating. One factor could be a general increase in vigilance among editors. Scientists are living in a "more vigilant society" in general. Retraction data also show a steady decline in the number of repeat offenders. That could be another sign that the new detection technology is having an effect, making it harder to plagiarize or commit other ethical offenses. Systems for ensuring integrity in scientific research nevertheless remain far from perfect. Researchers still face strong pressures to publish, and as scientific journals proliferate, experts acknowledge that those determined to cheat will continue to find a way. One of the major deterrents, peer review, still has weaknesses. It was created at a time when the world of science was much smaller, and when both authors and reviewers were likely to be better qualified. Disciplines now are more crowded and leading specialists in a subject now either cannot keep up with the demand for their reviewing services or do not give papers the time necessary to ferret out some of the telltale signs of fraud. The detection software might also be distracting journals from chasing the most serious cases of fraud by creating pressure to retract articles even if the authors are guilty only of accidental and minor instances of plagiarism. That might be especially true given the growing number of international scientists whose cultural norms may allow for greater latitude in uncredited citations.