Regulation and self-regulation of ethical practices in scientific publication
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
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.
Downloads
References
REFERENCIAS
Lolas F. Ética de la Publicación Médica: Legalidad y legitimidad. Acta Bioeth 2000; 6 (2): 283-91.
Lolas F, Outomuro D. Ética en la publicación de los resultados de la investigación. En: Lolas F, Quezada A, Rodríguez E, editores. Investigación en Salud. Dimensión Ética Santiago de Chile. Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioética, Universidad de Chile; 2006. p. 259-72.
San Román Terán CM. Aspectos éticos de las comunicaciones científicas. Galicia Clin, 2011; 72(4):169-79.
Targino M. ¿Tutoría o Autoria?. Fonseca, Journal of Communication 2011; 2: 18-34.
Reyes H, Kaufmann R, Andresen M. La autoría en los manuscritos publicados en Revistas Biomédicas. Rev Med Chil 2000; 128: 363-66.
Rodríguez E, Lolas F, Garbi-Novaes MR, et al. Integridad Ética en la Investigación en Latinoamérica. (acceso Noviembre 14, 2012, at. http://www.uchile.cl/uchile/download.jsp?document=76826&property=attachment&index=5&content=application/pdf)
Becerril AM. La ética en las publicaciones de revistas médicas. Rev Alerg Mex 2010; 57(4):105-6.
Avanzas P, Bayes-Genis A, Pérez de la Isla J, et al. Consideraciones éticas de la publicación de artículos científicos. Rev Esp Cardiol, 2011; 64 (5):427-29.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (acceso Octubre 15, 2012, at http://publicationethics.org/).
Wager E, Fiack S, Graf C, et al. Science Journal editors view on publication ethics: results of an international survey. J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 348-53.
Camps V. Un marco ético para la bioética. En: Herrera R. coord. Hacia una nueva ética. México: Siglo XXI; 2006. pp. 37-47.
Candilis P. Commentary: A New Chapter for Forensic Ethics. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2011; 39: 342–44.
Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists Behaving badly. Nature 2005; 435:737-38.
Steneck N. editor. Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. [Libro electrónico] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); 2007. (acceso Octubre 04, 2011, at http://research.ucmerced.edu/docs/ORI%20Introduction.pdf).
Sagols L, Linares J, de la Garza T. Ética y Valores 1. México: Mc Graw Hill; 2005.
Kottow M. Conflictos en ética de investigación con seres humanos. Cad Saude Publica 2005; 21(3):862-69.
Alfonso F, Bermejo J, Segovia J. Publicación duplicada o redundante: ¿podemos permitírnoslo?. Rev Esp Cardiol 2005; 58 (5): 601-04.
Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A, et al. Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: A Publisher’s Perspective. Int J of Clin Pract 2006; 61 (Suppl.): 1-26.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ICMJE (acceso Octubre 15, 2012, at http://www.icmje.org/index.html) .
Zhang H. CrossCheck: an effective tool for detecting plagiarism. Learn Publ 2010; 23 (1): 9-14.
Matías-Guiu J, García-Ramos R. Fraude y conductas inapropiadas en las publicaciones científicas. Neurología 2010; 25(1):1-4.
Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI). Publicación y Autoría. (acceso Octubre 21, 2010, at http://cursos.campusvirtualsp.org/course/view.php?id=65&pageid=1916).
Laguna S, Caballero-Uribe C, Lewis V, et al. Consideraciones éticas en la publicación de investigaciones científicas. Salud Uninorte 2007; 23 (1): 64-78.
Board on Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine. Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington: The National Academy Press; 2002.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirement for Manuscript Submitted to Biomedical Journal. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 309-15.
Cambridge Journals. Ethical Standards and Procedures. 2013. (acceso Septiembre 2, 2013, at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/stream?pageId=6728&level=2.
Beecher H. Ethics and Clinical Research. N Engl J Med 1966; 274: 367-671.
Rockwell S. Ethics of Peer Review: A Guide for Manuscript Reviewers 2006. (acceso Noviembre 9, 2012, at http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/yale/prethics.pdf).
Rennie D. Freedom and Responsibility in Medical Publication Setting the Balance Right. JAMA 1998; 280 (3): 300-02.
Mark Ware Consulting. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives 2008. (acceso Febrero 08, 2013, at http://www.publishingresearch.org.uk/documents/PRCsummary4Warefinal.pdf).
Clark R. Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer. Br Dent J 2012; 213 (4): 153-54.
Godlee F. Making Reviewers Visible Openness, Accountability, and Credit. JAMA 2002; 287 (21): 2762-65.
Scott A. Peer review and the relevance of science. Futures 2007; 39: 827-45.
Halder N, Ramsay R, Tyrer P, et al. Peer reviewing made easy. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2011; 17: 150-57.
Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, et al. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. BJ Psych 2000; 176: 47-51. (acceso Octubre 9, 2012, at http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PRCsummary4Warefinal.pdf).
Campanario J. El sistema de revisión por expertos (peer review): muchos problemas y pocas soluciones. Rev Esp de Doc Cient 2002; 25 (3): 267-85.
Buela-Casal G. 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 2003; 15 (1): 23-35.
Chen XP. Author Ethical Dilemmas in the Research Publication Process. Management and Organization Review 2011; 7(3): 423–32.
Marcus A, Oransky I. The paper is not sacred. Nature 2011; 480 (22): 449–50.
Sox H, Rennie D. Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 144: 7-11.
Lolas F. Bioética y Medicina: aspectos de una relación. Santiago de Chile: Biblioteca Americana; 2002.
