Napolitani Federica, Petrini Carlo, Garattini Silvio
Publishing Unit, Istituto Superiore di Sanità (Italian National Institute of Health), Viale Regina Elena 299, I-00161 Rome, Italy.
Bioethics Unit, Istituto Superiore di Sanità (Italian National Institute of Health), Viale Regina Elena 299, I-00161 Rome, Italy.
Eur J Intern Med. 2017 May;40:22-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.12.011. Epub 2016 Dec 27.
The approval or rejection of scientific publications can have important consequences for scientific knowledge, so considerable responsibility lies on those who have to assess or review them. Today it seems that the peer review process, far from being considered an outdated system to be abandoned, is experiencing a new upturn.
This article proposes criteria for the conduct of reviewers and of those who select them. While commenting on new emerging models, it provides practical recommendations for improving the peer-review system, like strengthening the role of guidelines and training and supporting reviewers.
The process of peer review is changing, it is getting more open and collaborative, but those same ethical principles which guided it from its very origin should remain untouched and be firmly consolidated. The paper highlights how the ethics of reviewing scientific publications is needed now more than ever, in particular with regard to competence, conflict of interest, willingness to discuss decisions, complete transparency and integrity.
科学出版物的批准或拒绝会对科学知识产生重要影响，因此，评估或审查这些出版物的人肩负着重大责任。如今，同行评审过程似乎远未被视为一个应被摒弃的过时系统，反而正在经历新的复兴。
本文提出了评审人员及其选拔者的行为准则。在对新兴模式进行评论时，它为改进同行评审系统提供了切实可行的建议，比如加强指南和培训的作用以及为评审人员提供支持。
同行评审过程正在发生变化，它变得更加开放和协作，但从一开始就指导它的那些道德原则应保持不变并得到坚定巩固。本文强调，如今比以往任何时候都更需要科学出版物评审的道德规范，尤其是在能力、利益冲突、讨论决定的意愿、完全透明和诚信方面。
