...
首页> 外文期刊>Animal >Ethical policies on animal experiments are not compromised by whether a journal is freely accessible or charges for publication
【24h】

Ethical policies on animal experiments are not compromised by whether a journal is freely accessible or charges for publication

机译:是否免费获取期刊或收取出版费用不会影响动物实验的道德政策

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The advent of the open access (OA) movement in publishing has been instrumental in causing a shift in the accessibility of research findings published in academic journals. The adoption of OA and other online publication models means that the results of scientific research published in journals using a free access (FA) framework are now available, free of charge, to anyone with access to the Internet. FA journals typically require a payment from the authors of a manuscript, which has raised concerns about the quality of work published in them; accepting payment from an author may compromise a journal's acceptance criteria. This study addresses whether journal policy on the treatment of animals is influenced by whether a journal follows a FA publishing model, and whether a requirement to pay for publication has an influence. A random sample of 332 biomedical journals listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge and Directory of Open Access Journals databases were assessed for whether they had an ethical policy on publishing animal studies, and what form of publication framework they used (103 of the journals followed a FA framework; 101 charged in some way for publication). Only 135 (40.7%) of the journals surveyed demanded that submissions comply with a pre-defined ethical stance. FA journals are just as likely to have an ethical policy on the treatment and presentation of animal studies as 'traditional', non-FA journals (significance of there being a difference: P = 0.98), and there is no relationship between policy and whether an author is required to pay for publication (significance of there being a difference: P = 0.57). Older journals are more likely to have an ethical policy (P = 0.03). There is, therefore, no obvious compromise shown by FA journals in the explicit policies on reporting studies involving animals. However, since anyone can read published FA studies online, FA journals that do not have an explicit policy about publishing animal research are urged to consider adopting one.
机译:出版中的开放获取(OA)运动的到来,促使学术期刊上发表的研究结果的可获取性发生了变化。 OA和其他在线出版模型的采用意味着,使用免费访问(FA)框架在期刊上发表的科学研究成果现在可以免费提供给任何可以访问Internet的人。 FA期刊通常要求稿件的作者付款,这引起了人们对其发表的作品质量的担忧。接受作者的付款可能会损害期刊的接受标准。这项研究探讨了期刊是否遵循动物基金会的出版模式,以及出版的付款要求是否会影响期刊是否影响动物的期刊政策。对ISI知识网和开放获取期刊目录数据库中列出的332种生物医学期刊的随机样本进行了评估,以评估它们是否具有出版动物研究的道德政策以及所采用的出版框架形式(其中103种期刊遵循FA框架;以某种方式收取费用101。接受调查的期刊中只有135(40.7%)要求投稿必须符合预先定义的道德立场。与“传统”非FA期刊一样,FA期刊对动物研究的处理和发表都具有道德政策(可能存在差异:P = 0.98),并且政策与是否作者需要支付出版费用(存在差异的意义:P = 0.57)。较旧的期刊更有可能采取道德政策(P = 0.03)。因此,FA期刊在报告涉及动物的研究的明确政策中没有显示出明显的妥协。但是,由于任何人都可以在线阅读已发表的FA研究,因此,对于没有明确政策发表动物研究的FA期刊,应考虑采用该期刊。

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