首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Medical Ethics >Should intellectual property be disseminated by forwarding rejected letters without permission?
【2h】

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

机译:是否应在未经许可的情况下通过转发被拒绝的信件来传播知识产权?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:实质性的科学信函写作是补充观察和实验研究的一种经济有效的方式。这种哲学上没有承诺和不负责任的,平衡的科学活动的价值已被贬低。批判性信函写作具有以下能力:保持理性的怀疑态度;拒绝遵守以解释数据;坚持以常识为中心;行使逻辑以评估数学数字(包括统计数据)的生物学意义,以及维持意愿的能力,以便在表面上较低的研究平台上分享有关疾病机制的见解。在同行评审中,创新的信件写作可能会分享创新研究的不幸命运。被拒绝的科学信函不会自动失去版权。载有大量信件的期刊将浪费一些宝贵的资源,但这是维持科学出版物自主权的代价。科学界是一个整体,必须尊重各级作者的权利。未经授权转发拒绝的信件为证明不公正手段辩护开了危险的先例。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号