Whilst research has always been political and politicized, an emerging theme in the area of research ethics and integrity (REI) is the increased politicization of REI itself in areas of scientific and/or political controversy such as climate change, gender dysphoria treatment, the management of pandemics and women's reproductive rights. One aspect of this trend is the 'weaponization' of research misconduct allegations and findings to discredit individuals, institutions or intellectual or scientific positions (Bruckner, 2024). Such politicization has been amplified by the increasing role of online and social media as a platform for public discourses on REI, and for airing whistle-blower complaints and accusations of Research Misconduct (RM) against both research-performing institutions and individual researchers. This shift has implications for the temporality of REI reporting and investigations, since traditionally such processes are slow and deliberative to ensure transparency, objectivity, fairness and thoroughness. However, this meticulous approach is inimical to the fast pace of online media discourse (including social media), which plays an increasing role in RM cases and adds pressure on institutions and researchers to accelerate the speed of judgments in RM cases and to make their investigations and findings more publicly transparent. This piece will discuss three cases that highlight multiple aspects of the politicization of REI, which were identified through a qualitative case study exercise carried out by the Horizon Europe-funded BEYOND project (https://beyondbadapples.eu) to assess novel and emerging issues related to REI discourses. The study conducted a comparative qualitative evaluation of press and public discourses around 23 identified real-life cases of (alleged) research misconduct that occurred between 2019 and 2023 across four project partner countries: Estonia, Latvia, the Netherlands and the UK (Slesinger et al., 2023). Cases were sourced from multiple online and social media outlets in English and local languages, which were then cross-referenced with independent sources including investigatory reports, institutional statements, Retraction Watch, and professional online profiles. This method enabled the extraction of rich qualitative data with detailed narratives and factual information on each case, addressing the challenge of limited databases for RM reporting in Europe. While the limited number of countries involved and the methodology employed prevent broad conclusions, key issues were identified for initial discussion and further enquiry.