首页> 外文期刊>Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science >Ethical exceptionalism: can publishing rules be manipulated to give the impression of ethical publishing?
【24h】

Ethical exceptionalism: can publishing rules be manipulated to give the impression of ethical publishing?

机译:道德例外主义:是否可以操纵发布规则以给人以道德发布的印象?

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Faced with increased threats, biomedical publishing is fortifying its publishing fortress. More rules, greater ethical standards, more verification steps, stricter penalties all seem to characterize a publishing environment that has become considerably hostile, and aggressive. It does not help that the system is being increasingly exploited by unethical individuals or groups, either intellectually or financially, and now monitored by an equally aggressive post-publication science watchdog vigilante movement. When extremes build up within a system, they create intolerable stress and at some point, the system will explode. In the past few years, biomedical publishing has witnessed several important ruptures to its integrity and a concomitant rise in the power of influence of ethical groups or organizations who have been entrusted, in some cases self-entrusted, with creating and monitoring the evolution of the ethics rules that the vast majority of biomedical academics are then expected to follow. This paper puts forward a hypothetical argument that “ethics” associations, or publicly acclaimed ethics specialists, are also subjected to the same corrupting forces as authors, editors or publishers. Despite this, none are being scrutinized, or being held accountable in an independently verifiable manner. “Ethical” power holds great marketing value for for-profit publishers. This paper examines hypothetically how “ethics” associations could become corrupted, could accumulate excessive power, or could manipulate rules to create a dual system of ethics to favor themselves.Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science Vol.16(4) 2017 p.610-614
机译:面对越来越多的威胁,生物医学出版正在加强其出版要塞。更多的规则,更高的道德标准,更多的验证步骤,更严厉的处罚似乎都标志着发布环境已变得相当敌对和激进。不道德的个人或团体无论是从智力上还是从财务上都越来越多地利用该系统,而现在由同样激进的出版后科学监督者警惕运动进行监视,这无济于事。当极端情况在系统中累积时,它们会产生无法承受的压力,并且在某个时刻,系统会爆炸。在过去的几年中,生物医学出版业见证了其完整性的几次重大破裂,以及伴随着伦理团体或组织的影响力的上升,这些团体或组织在某些情况下被自我赋予了责任,以创造和监督科学出版的发展。伦理规则要求绝大多数生物医学学者遵循。本文提出了一个假设论点,即“伦理”协会或公众公认的伦理专家也遭受与作者,编辑或出版者同样的腐败力量。尽管如此,没有人对它们进行审查或以独立可验证的方式追究责任。 “道德”力量对营利性出版商具有巨大的营销价值。本文假设性地研究了“伦理”协会如何被破坏,如何积聚过多​​的权力或如何操纵规则以建立有利于自己的双重伦理体系。孟加拉国医学杂志,Vol.16(4)2017,p.610-614

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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