Grieger Maria Christina Anna
Faculdade de Medicina de Itajubá, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Sao Paulo Med J. 2005 Sep 1;123(5):242-6. doi: 10.1590/s1516-31802005000500008. Epub 2005 Dec 8.
The scientific and technological progress that has taken place since the 1960s has brought an ever-growing volume of scientific research, and inflation in co-authorship. Over this period, it has been observed that an increasing number of publications have listed authors or co-authors whose participation in the published research was minimal or even nonexistent. The objective of this work was to analyze reports in the literature regarding misconduct in authorship: its types, chief causes, consequences and ethical guidelines; and to outline proposals for greater ethical commitment in scientific publication.
Narrative review undertaken at Faculdade de Medicina de Itajubá, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Analysis of publications about authorship using the Medline, Lilacs and SciELO databases.
Frequent types of misconduct were gift authorship and divided and redundant publications. The chief causes of these practices seem to be the pressure exerted by academia and the desire for social and professional development. Such factors have brought an increase in unethical behavior. This bias in science continues despite the criteria defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Vancouver group.
Various actions are proposed for educational institutions, research development agencies, regulatory agencies and professional associations. The aim is to establish an evaluation policy that gives primacy to the quality of publications and sets ethical principles for scientific research.
自20世纪60年代以来的科技进步带来了数量不断增长的科研成果以及共同署名现象的泛滥。在此期间,人们观察到越来越多的出版物列出了参与已发表研究极少甚至根本没有参与的作者或共同作者。这项工作的目的是分析文献中关于署名不当行为的报道:其类型、主要原因、后果和道德准则;并概述在科学出版中加强道德承诺的建议。
在巴西米纳斯吉拉斯州伊塔茹巴医学院进行的叙述性综述。
使用Medline、Lilacs和SciELO数据库分析关于署名的出版物。
常见的不当行为类型是赠送署名以及拆分和重复发表。这些行为的主要原因似乎是学术界施加的压力以及对社会和职业发展的渴望。这些因素导致了不道德行为的增加。尽管医学期刊编辑国际委员会(温哥华小组)制定了标准,但科学界的这种偏见仍然存在。
为教育机构、研究发展机构、监管机构和专业协会提出了各种行动建议。目的是建立一项以出版物质量为首要考量并为科学研究设定道德原则的评估政策。