• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
[Is science for everyone? bioethical challenges of current editorial practices].[科学是为所有人的吗?当前编辑实践中的生物伦理挑战]
Rev Fac Cien Med Univ Nac Cordoba. 2024 Dec 13;81(4):636-638. doi: 10.31053/1853.0605.v81.n4.46392.
2
[The different models of scientific journals].[科学期刊的不同模式]
Med Trop Sante Int. 2023 Dec 8;3(4). doi: 10.48327/mtsi.v3i4.2023.454. eCollection 2023 Dec 31.
3
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
4
Troubling Trends in Biomedical Research Publication: "Publish or Perish" Results in a Propensity for Ethical Violations.生物医学研究出版中的不良趋势:“不发表就出局”导致违反伦理的倾向。
Arthroscopy. 2025 Apr;41(4):859-862. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.12.017. Epub 2024 Dec 20.
5
A Learned Society's Perspective on Publishing.一个学术团体对出版的看法。
J Neurochem. 2016 Oct;139 Suppl 2:17-23. doi: 10.1111/jnc.13674. Epub 2016 Aug 17.
6
Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication.出版伦理与掠夺性做法:科学传播所有利益相关者面临的困境。
J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Aug;30(8):1010-6. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.8.1010. Epub 2015 Jul 15.
7
Predatory Open-Access Publishing in Anesthesiology.麻醉学领域的掠夺性开放获取出版。
Anesth Analg. 2019 Jan;128(1):182-187. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003803.
8
Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper.发表科学论文应采用的规则。
Ann Ital Chir. 2016;87:1-3.
9
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
10
Publishing integrity and good practices in editing in biomedicine.生物医学领域的出版诚信与编辑规范
Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki). 2014;35(3):11-6.

本文引用的文献

1
Current market rates for scholarly publishing services.当前学术出版服务的市场费率。
F1000Res. 2021 Jan 12;10:20. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.27468.2. eCollection 2021.
2
Predatory Journals: What They Are and How to Avoid Them.掠夺性期刊:是什么及如何避免它们。
Toxicol Pathol. 2020 Jun;48(4):607-610. doi: 10.1177/0192623320920209. Epub 2020 Apr 22.
3
The present state of medical journals.医学期刊的现状。
Lancet. 1998 Oct;352 Suppl 2:SII18-22. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)90295-1.

[科学是为所有人的吗?当前编辑实践中的生物伦理挑战]

[Is science for everyone? bioethical challenges of current editorial practices].

作者信息

Gutiérrez Silvina, Mukdsi Jorge Humberto

机构信息

Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.

出版信息

Rev Fac Cien Med Univ Nac Cordoba. 2024 Dec 13;81(4):636-638. doi: 10.31053/1853.0605.v81.n4.46392.

DOI:10.31053/1853.0605.v81.n4.46392
PMID:39670895
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11905779/
Abstract

As Drumond Rennie put it, ‘Science does not come alive until it is shared publicly’ (1998), emphasising that the rapid advancement of scientific research requires its efficient and rigorous dissemination both to encourage the development of new strategies and to avoid duplication of effort and resources. The current model of scientific and technological research is facing a significant challenge: the cost associated with publishing its results. It is now increasingly common for publishers to impose fees on the scientific community to publish their results, generating debate about the impact of this practice on the fairness of scientific dissemination. Requiring researchers to pay publication costs would limit or exclude research from countries with limited resources, creating significant barriers to the dissemination of knowledge. It has been estimated that costs in some cases are up to ten times higher than what is considered adequate to cover the actual costs of publication (Grossmann & Brembs, 2021). This mismatch raises questions about the justification for such fees and the benefits to funders, given that the funds are often public, or even come from researchers' own pockets. Moreover, this current model supports a highly lucrative publishing industry, valued at approximately $10 billion (Global $10B Scientific & Technical Publishing Industry Report, 2019-2023), and is possibly one of the main causes of the emergence of so-called Predatory Journals. These journals, sometimes described as fraudulent, appear to be legitimate journals, but in reality distort certain publication practices, with a purely profit-driven ultimate purpose (Elmore & Weston, 2020), representing an ethical violation by exploiting the need of researchers for financial gain without providing true scientific value. Given the current landscape, it is crucial to reflect on how these practices affect equity in the dissemination of scientific knowledge?, and how publishing power can limit the dissemination of research on specific pathologies in emerging countries, restricting the right of communities to access crucial information and develop effective public health policies?. Undoubtedly, equity of access to and distribution of scientific knowledge is a fundamental principle that must be strongly defended. Paying high costs for scientific and technological publication not only jeopardises equal opportunities for researchers from regions with fewer resources, but also affects fairness in the distribution of knowledge. This economic barrier can result in a systematic exclusion of relevant perspectives and data from emerging countries, deepening inequalities and limiting global progress in critical areas such as public health. Consequently, there is a need to re-examine the current publication model to ensure that science continues to advance in a way that is fair and accessible to all, and to ensure that information vital to public health and scientific progress is not restricted by economic barriers, but is based on principles of fairness and transparency. Indeed, the scientific community must work together to promote the dissemination of knowledge in a manner that is accessible, equitable and free from harmful practices.

摘要

正如德拉蒙德·伦尼所说:“科学只有在公开分享时才会焕发生机”(1998年),强调科学研究的快速进步需要高效且严谨的传播,以鼓励新策略的发展,并避免努力和资源的重复。当前的科技研究模式正面临重大挑战:发布研究成果的相关成本。如今,出版商向科学界收取成果发表费用的情况越来越普遍,这引发了关于这种做法对科学传播公平性影响的争论。要求研究人员支付发表成本会限制或排除资源有限国家的研究,给知识传播造成重大障碍。据估计,在某些情况下,费用高达被认为足以覆盖实际发表成本的十倍(格罗斯曼和布雷姆斯,2021年)。这种差距引发了关于此类费用合理性以及对资助者益处的质疑,因为资金通常是公共资金,甚至来自研究人员自己的腰包。此外,当前这种模式支撑着一个利润丰厚的出版行业,其价值约为100亿美元(《全球100亿美元科技出版行业报告,2019 - 2023》),并且可能是所谓掠夺性期刊出现的主要原因之一。这些期刊有时被描述为欺诈性期刊,看似是正规期刊,但实际上扭曲了某些出版行为,其最终目的纯粹是逐利(埃尔莫尔和韦斯顿,2020年),通过利用研究人员对经济收益的需求而不提供真正的科学价值,构成了一种道德违规行为。鉴于当前的情况,反思这些做法如何影响科学知识传播的公平性,以及出版权力如何限制新兴国家对特定病症研究的传播,限制社区获取关键信息和制定有效公共卫生政策的权利,至关重要。毫无疑问,获取和传播科学知识的公平性是一项必须大力捍卫的基本原则。为科技出版支付高昂成本不仅危及资源较少地区研究人员的平等机会,还影响知识分配的公平性。这种经济障碍可能导致系统性地排除新兴国家的相关观点和数据,加深不平等,并限制公共卫生等关键领域的全球进步。因此,有必要重新审视当前的出版模式,以确保科学继续以公平且人人可及的方式发展,并确保对公共卫生和科学进步至关重要的信息不受经济障碍限制,而是基于公平和透明原则。确实,科学界必须共同努力,以一种可及、公平且无有害行为的方式促进知识传播。