Suppr超能文献

未经许可通过“转发”被拒信件来传播知识产权是否可行?

Should intellectual property be disseminated by "forwarding" rejected letters without permission?

作者信息

Gupta V K

机构信息

Dubai Police Medical Services, United Arab Emirates.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 1996 Aug;22(4):243-4; discussion 245-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.22.4.243.

Abstract

Substantive scientific letter writing is a cost-effective mode of complementing observational and experimental research. The value of such philosophically uncommitted and unsponsored well-balanced scientific activity has been relegated. Critical letter writing entails the abilities to: maintain rational scepticism; refuse to conform in order to explain data; persist in keeping common sense centre-stage; exercise logic to evaluate the biological significance of mathematical figures, including statistics, and the ability to sustain the will to share insights regarding disease mechanisms on an ostensibly lower research platform. During peer review, innovative letter writing may share the occasionally unfortunate fate of innovative research. Rejected scientific letters do not automatically lose copyright. Periodicals with high letter loads will see some valuable contributions wasted, but that is the price for maintaining autonomy in scientific publication. The scientific community is an integrated whole that must respect the rights of authors at all levels. Unauthorised forwarding of rejected letters sets the dangerous precedent of justifying unjust means.

摘要

撰写有实质内容的科学信函是一种经济高效的方式,可对观察性研究和实验性研究起到补充作用。这种不带有特定哲学倾向且无赞助的、平衡良好的科学活动的价值已被贬低。撰写批判性信函需要具备以下能力:保持理性怀疑;为解释数据而拒绝随波逐流;坚持将常识置于核心位置;运用逻辑来评估包括统计学在内的数学数据的生物学意义,以及在表面上较低的研究平台上分享有关疾病机制见解的意愿。在同行评审过程中,创新性信函撰写可能会遭遇与创新性研究偶尔相同的不幸命运。被拒的科学信函并不会自动丧失版权。信函刊载量高的期刊会有一些有价值的投稿被浪费,但这是在科学出版中保持自主性所付出的代价。科学界是一个整体,必须尊重各级作者的权利。未经授权转发被拒信函会开创以不正当手段为正当行为的危险先例。

相似文献

2
BMJ response to Dr. Gupta.《英国医学杂志》对古普塔博士的回应。
J Med Ethics. 1996 Aug;22(4):245-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.22.4.245.
7
Conflict of interest and the BMJ.利益冲突与《英国医学杂志》
BMJ. 1994 Jan 1;308(6920):4-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6920.4.
8
Will the UK cope?英国能应对吗?
Lancet. 1997 Jul 26;350(9073):234. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)62223-4.
9

本文引用的文献

1
Authors have rights too.作者也有权利。
BMJ. 1993 Mar 13;306(6879):716-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6879.716-c.
3
Authors have rights too.作者也有权利。
BMJ. 1993 Jan 30;306(6873):318-20. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6873.318.
5
The role of letters in reviewing research.信件在审查研究中的作用。
BMJ. 1994 Jun 18;308(6944):1582-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6944.1582.
6
Questioning academic integrity.质疑学术诚信。
BMJ. 1994 Dec 17;309(6969):1597-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6969.1597.
8
Editors and auditors.
JAMA. 1989 May 5;261(17):2543-5.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验