medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-3325 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñiz

2017, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Salud Mental 2017; 40 (5)

Regulation and self-regulation of ethical practices in scientific publication

Mondragón BL, Jiménez TJA, Meza MDM, Sosa ML

Language: English
References: 31
Page: 227-234
PDF size: 192.17 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction. The process of publication is influenced by a pressure on researchers to demonstrate their competence and productivity by publishing large numbers of articles in indexed journals. But there is a great deal of ignorance regarding the ethical obligations in scientific publication; worse, ethical considerations are often seen as mere formalities in the process of publishing an article. Objective. This article discusses the ethical practices related to the publication of a scientific article. It encompasses those defined by forms of external regulation and those that might be identified as forms of self-regulation, and it argues for the greater effectiveness of the latter in scientific publication. Method. We performed a literature review and a critical analysis of the information. Results. There are negative factors that range from plagiarism and the duplication of articles to the fabrication and falsification of data. Researchers look for convenient solutions, taking refuge in practices condoned, paradoxically, by the very scientific community that condemns them. Rather than avoiding these forms of misconduct, the scientific community even justifies them at times, which means that the practices continue. Discussion and conclusion. Self-regulation in scientific publication is a preferable goal: it allows participants in the process to assume their obligations freely and with a greater sense of responsibility.


REFERENCES

  1. Alfonso, F., Bermejo, J., & Segovia, J. (2005). Publicación duplicada o redundante: ¿podemos permitírnoslo? Revista Española de Cardiología, 58(05), 601-604.

  2. Ángeles, M. B. (2010). La ética en las publicaciones de revistas médicas. Revista Alergia México, 57(4), 105-106.

  3. Avanzas, P., Bayes-Genis, A., Pérez de Isla, L., Sanchis, J., & Heras, M. (2011). Consideraciones éticas de la publicación de artículos científicos. Revista Española de Cardiología, 64(5), 427-429.

  4. Beecher, H. (1966). Ethics and Clinical Research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 274(24), 1354-1360.

  5. Buela-Casal, G. (2003). Evaluación de la calidad de los artículos y de las revistas científicas: Propuesta del factor de impacto ponderado y de un índice de calidad. Psicothema, 15(1), 23-35.

  6. Cambridge Journals Ethical Standards and Procedures. (2013). Retrieved from: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/stream?pageId=6728&level=2.

  7. Cameron, C., Zhao, H., & McHugh, M. K. (2012). Publication ethics and the emerging scientific workforce: understanding ‘plagiarism’in a global context. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 87(1). doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31823aadc7.

  8. Campanario, J. M. (2002). El sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review): muchos problemas y pocas soluciones. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 25(3), 267-285.

  9. Camps, V. (2006). Un marco ético para la bioética. En: R. Herrera (Ed.), Hacia una nueva ética (pp. 37-47) México: Siglo XXI.

  10. Candilis, P. J. (2011). Commentary: A new chapter for forensic ethics. The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39(3), 342-344.

  11. Chen, X. P. (2011). Author ethical dilemmas in the research publication process. Management and Organization Review, 7(3), 423-432.

  12. Clark, R. (2012). Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer. British Dental Journal, 213(4), 153-154.

  13. Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative. (2010). Publicación y Autoría. Retrieved from: http://cursos.campusvirtualsp.org/course/view.php?id=65&pageid= 1916

  14. Committee on Publication Ethics. (2005). Code of Conduct for Editors. Retrieved from: http://publicationethics.org/

  15. Godlee, F. (2002). Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA, 287(21), 2762-2765.

  16. Graf, C., Wager, E., Bowman, A., Fiack, S., Scott-Lichter, D., & Robinson, A. (2007). Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: a publisher’s perspective. International journal of clinical practice, 61(s152), 1-26. 16. Halder, N., Ramsay, R., Tyrer, P., & Casey, P. (2011). Peer reviewing made easy. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 17(2), 150-157.

  17. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2012). Retrieved from: http:// www.icmje.org/index.html

  18. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (1997). Uniform Requirement for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. The New England Journal of Medicine, 336(4), 309-315.

  19. Kottow, M. H. (2005). Conflictos en ética de investigación con seres humanos Ethical conflicts in research with human subjects. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 21(3), 862-869.

  20. Lolas, F. (2002). Bioética y Medicina: Aspectos de una relación. Santiago de Chile: Biblioteca Americana.

  21. Lolas, F. (2000). Ética de la Publicación Médica: Legalidad y legitimidad. Acta Bioethica, 6(2), 283-291.

  22. Lolas, F., & Outomuro, D. (2006). Ética de la Publicación Médica. En: F. Lolas, A. Quezada, & E. Rodríguez (Eds.), Investigación en Salud. Dimensión Ética (pp. 259-272). Santiago de Chile: Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioética, Universidad de Chile.

  23. Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2011). Science publishing: The paper is not sacred. Nature, 480(7378), 449-450.

  24. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737-738.

  25. Matías-Guiu, J., & García-Ramos, R. (2010). Fraude y conductas inapropiadas en las publicaciones científicas. Neurología, 25(1), 1-4.

  26. National Research Council. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington: The National Academies Press.

  27. Rennie, D. (1998). Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right. JAMA, 280(3), 300-302.

  28. Reyes, H., Kauffmann, R., & Andresen, M. (2000). La autoría en los manuscritos publicados en revistas biomédicas. Revista Médica de Chile, 128(4), 363-366.

  29. Rockwell, S. (2006). Ethics of Peer Review: A Guide for Manuscript Reviewers. Retrieved from: http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/yale/prethics.pdf

  30. Rodríguez, E., Lolas, F., Garbi-Novaes, M. R., Alicia, C., Cardozo, J. I. C., Rodríguez, K., … & Valencia-Marroquín, H. E. (2006). Integridad ética en la investigación en Latinoamérica. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 98(6), 373-376. Retrieved from: http://www.uchile.cl/uchile/download.jsp?document= 76826&property=attachment&index=5&content=application/pdf

  31. Sagols, L., Linares, J., & de la Garza, T. (2005). Ética y Valores 1. México: Mc Graw Hill.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com