medigraphic.com
Colegio de Medicina Interna de México.

2025, Number 02

<< Back Next >>

Med Int Mex 2025; 41 (02)

Science for sale

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

Language: Spanish
References: 35
Page: 132-138
PDF size: 211.55 Kb.


ABSTRACT

We live in a commercialized world with great technological advances without ethical standards that have permeated science in all fields. The writings of various authors on monetary interests in science and their impact on credibility and contrast with research and publication activities and with health care activities are described in an empirical way. It is important to make proposals with efficient methods for global regulation of research practice: a global governing body that exposes and limits these activities that denigrate the scientific credibility of research.


REFERENCES

  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