medigraphic.com
Colegio de Medicina Interna de México.

2025, Número 02

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Med Int Mex 2025; 41 (02)


Ciencia a la venta

Lugo MJA, Hernández SY, Pacheco SAA, Medina VE, García RPE

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 35
Paginas: 132-138
Archivo PDF: 211.55 Kb.


RESUMEN

Se vive en un mundo mercantilista, con grandes avances tecnológicos, sin normas éticas que han permeado a la ciencia en todos los campos. Se describen los escritos que varios autores han publicado acerca de los intereses monetarios en la ciencia y su repercusión en la credibilidad y contrastación con las actividades de investigación y publicación, y de las asistenciales de forma empírica. Es importante hacer propuestas con métodos eficientes para la regulación de forma global de la práctica de investigación: un órgano rector global que exponga y limite estas actividades que denigran la credibilidad científica de la investigación.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Socol Y, Shaki YY, Yanovskiy M. Interests, Bias, and Consensusin Science and Regulation. Dose-Response 2019; 17 (2).https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325819853669

  2. Gingras Y, Gosselin PM. The emergence and evolution ofthe expression “conflict of interests” in science: A historicaloverview, 1880-2006. Sci Eng Ethics 2008; 14 (3): 337-43.https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11948-008-9063-8

  3. Bravais A. Mémoire Sur Les Systèmes Formés Par Des PointsDistribués Régulièrement Sur Un Plan Ou Dans L’espace. JEc Polytech 1850; 19: 1-28.

  4. Goozner M. The $800 million pill: The truth behind thecost of new drugs. The $800 Million Pill: The Truth Behindthe Cost of New Drugs, 2004. https://biblioteca.izt.uam.mx/vufind/Record/EBOOKCENTRAL_ocm55538532/Similar

  5. Park-Wyllie LY, Juurlink DN, Kopp A, Shah BR, et al. Outpatientgatifloxacin therapy and dysglycemia in olderadults. N Engl J Med 2006; 354 (13): 1352-61. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa055191

  6. Ross JS, Madigan D, Hill KP, Egilman DS, et al. Pooledanalysis of rofecoxib placebo-controlled clinical trial datalessons for postmarket pharmaceutical safety surveillance.Arch Intern Med 2009; 169 (21): 1976-84. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.394

  7. DeBakey L, DeBakey S. Ethics and etiquette in biomedicalcommunication. Perspect Biol Med 1975; 18 (4): 522-40.https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1975.0054

  8. Freedman DX. The Meaning of Full Disclosure: CollegialTrust in Science. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;45(7):689–91.

  9. Friedman PJ. Research ethics: A teaching agenda foracademic medicine. Vol. 65, Academic Medicine. 1990.p. 32–3.

  10. Claxton LD. Scientific authorship: Part 1. A window intoscientific fraud? Mutation Research - Reviews in MutationResearch. 2005; 589:17-30. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.003

  11. Teitelbaum SL. Scientific misconduct: ORI survey is flawed.Nature. 2002; 420: 39-40.

  12. Protti M. Policing fraud and deceit: The legal aspects of misconductin scientific inquiry. J Infor Ethics 1996; 5 (1): 59-71.

  13. Garfield E, Welljams-Dorof A. The Impact of FraudulentResearch on the Scientific Literature: The Stephen E. BreuningCase. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 1990; 263 (10): 1424-6.

  14. Kennedy D. Next steps in the Schön affair. Vol. 298, Science.2002. p. 495.

  15. Haven T, van Woudenberg R. Explanations of ResearchMisconduct, and How They Hang Together. J Gen PhilosSci 2021; 52 (4): 543-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-021-09555-5

  16. Verhoeven F, Wendling D, Prati C. ChatGPT: when artificialintelligence replaces the rheumatologist in medical writing.Vol. 82, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2023. p. 1015–7.

  17. Enache R. Will ChatGPT replace human medical writers?Rom J Rhinol. 2023;13(51):90–3.

  18. Buholayka M, Zouabi R, Tadinada A. Is ChatGPT Ready toWrite Scientific Case Reports Independently? A ComparativeEvaluation Between Human and Artificial Intelligence.Cureus 2023; 15 (5): 2-6. https://doi.org/ 10.7759/cureus.39386

  19. Else H. Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists.Nature 2023; 613: 423. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00056-7

  20. Kempers RD. Ethical issues in biomedical publications. Vol.77, Fertility and Sterility 2002; 883-8.

  21. Claxton LD. Scientific authorship: Part 2. History, recurringissues, practices, and guidelines. Vol. 589, MutationResearch - Reviews in Mutation Research. 2005. p. 31–45.

  22. Lugo-Machado JA, Pacheco-Sánchez AA, Garcia-RamirezPE, Medina-Valentón E, et al. Predatory journals and theiridentification. Rom J Rhinol 2022; 12 (48): 149-53. https://doi.org/10.2478/rjr-2022-0023

  23. Beall’s List. Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers[Internet]. Https://Beallslist.Net/. 2021. Available from:https://beallslist.net/

  24. Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, et al.Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals:Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison.BMC Med 2017; 15 (1). https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9

  25. Abalkina A. Publication and collaboration anomalies inacademic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidencefrom a Russia-based paper mill. Learn Publ 2023; 36: 689-702. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1574

  26. Schneider L. The full-service paper mill and its Chinesecustomers – For Better Science [Internet]. For better Science2020. https://forbetterscience.com/2020/01/24/the-full-service-paper-mill-and-its-chinese-customers/

  27. Candal-Pedreira C, Ross JS, Ruano-Ravina A, Egilman DS,Fernández E, Pérez-Ríos M. Retracted papers originatingfrom paper mills: Cross sectional study. BMJ. 2022;379:1–7.

  28. 28. RSC Advances Editorial: retraction of falsified manuscripts.Vol. 11, RSC Advances. 2021. p. 4194–5.

  29. Else H, Van Noorden R. The fight against fake-paper factoriesthat churn out sham science. Nature 2021; 591: 516-19.

  30. Mara Hvistendahl. China ’ s Publication Bazaar. Science(80- ). 2013;342(November):1035–9.

  31. Robert Chen. Science for sale: Autorship Confirmade 2014;343:136-37.

  32. Zou Q, Ma J, Sheng X. A survey of medical ghostwriting inChina. Learn Publ 2019; 32 (4): 325-4.

  33. Hu Z wen, Wu Y shan. An empirical analysis on numberand monetary value of ghostwritten papers in china. CurrSci 2013; 105 (9): 1230-34.

  34. Abalkina A. Hijacked journals in Scopus Hijacked journals inScopus View project Hijacked journals in Scopus. PAEB2020Proc 2021.https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21135.92328

  35. Christopher J. Systematic fabrication of scientific imagesrevealed. Vol. 592, FEBS Letters. 2018; 3027-29. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/1873-3468.13201




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com