Ethics and inappropriate behaviors in research practice
Article Sidebar
Published:
Dec 20, 2019
Keywords:
authorship, arbitration, academic fraud, plagiarism, data manipulation
Main Article Content
Abstract
An overview of different ethical aspects linked to the research and academic publication processes is presented. Some interactions between the components of the research system are described, which can influence in an inappropriate behavior of researchers when carrying out their work and publish their results. The main values and knowledge that should serve as a frame of reference for researchers to work honestly and make balanced, fair and legal publications, within a rigorous and clear academic style, are highlighted. Some of the main consequences of academic fraud are highlighted, and a call upon researchers is made to foster a culture of good academic practices for students during their training.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
PLUMX Metrics
Article Details
How to Cite
Del Río Martínez, J. H., & Del Río Valdés, D. C. (2019). Ethics and inappropriate behaviors in research practice. Revista De Medicina Y Ética, 31(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.36105/mye.2020v31n1.02
Section
Articles
Medicina y Ética is distributed under a Creative Commons License Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.
The author keeps the property rights with no restriction whatsoever and guarantees the magazine the right to be the first publication of the work. The author is free to deposit the published version in any other medium, such as an institutional archive or on his own website.
References
1. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Fostering integrity in research. Washington, DC. The National Academies Press. Recuperado en: https://doi.org/10.17226/21896; 2017.
2. SILVA HERNÁNDEZ, D., LLANES CUEVAS, R., RODRÍGUEZ SILVA, A. Manifestaciones impropias en la publicación científica. CULCyT: Cultura Científica y Tecnológica. 2008; 25 (año 5): 5-15. Recuperado en: ///C:/Users/jdelrio/Downloads/Dialnet-ManifestacionesImpropiasEnLaPublicacionCientifica-2734222%20(5).pdf; https://doi.org/10.1590/s0864-34662007000400009
3. MISRA, D.P., RAVINDRAN, V., AGARWAL, V. Integrity of authorship and peer review practices: Challenges and opportunities for improvement. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2018; 33(46): e287-e. Recuperado en: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e287.
4. BRONOWSKI, J. Los orígenes del conocimiento y la imaginación. Barcelona, Gedisa,1997.
5. WHO. Editor Big data and artifcial intelligence for achieving universal health coverage: an international consultation on ethics. Meeting report 12–13 October 2017; 2018; Miami, Florida, USA. World Health Organization Geneva.
6. ABAD-GARCÍA, M.F. El plagio y las revistas depredadoras como amenaza a la integridad científica. Anales de Pediatría. 2019; 90(1): 57 e1-e8. Recuperado en: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpedi.2018.11.003.
7. SALINAS, P.J. Fraude científico en el ambiente universitario. MedUla. 2004; 13: 42-7. Recuperado en: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pedro_Salinas/publication/28110698_
Fraude_cientifico_en_el_ambiente_universitario/links/540f4a690cf2df04e75a2c78/Fraude-cientifico-en-el-ambiente-universitario.pdf; https://doi.org/10.25267/rueda.2015.07
8. DAY, R.A., SÁENZ, M. Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Cómo escribir y publicar trabajos científicos. 3 ed. Washington D.C. Organización Panamericana de la Salud, 2005. https://doi.org/10.21149/spm.v58i5.8182
9. ORI. The Office of Research Integrity. 28 Guidelines at a glance on avoiding plagiarism. RCR Casebook: data acquisition an management [Internet]. 12 de abril de 2019. Recuperado en: https://ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-0
10. HART, C. Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London, Sage Publications. 1998; IX, 230 pp.
11. ORI. The Office of Research Integrity. Case Three: I really can’t acquire important data? RCR Casebook: Data acquisition an management [Internet]. 12 de abril de 2019. Recuperado en:
https://ori.hhs.gov/case-three-i-really-can’t-acquire-important-data
12. PARKER, M., KINGORI, P. Good and bad research collaborations: researchers’ views on science and ethics in global health research. Plos One. 2016; 11(10): e0163579. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163579
13. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Diciembre de 2018, p. 19. Recuperado en: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnre.2016.01.001
14. REYES, B.H. Honestidad y buena fe: dos pilares en la ética de las publicaciones biomédicas. Revista Médica de Chile. 2007; 135: 415-8. Recuperado en: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872007000400001
15. SOLÍS SÁNCHEZ, G., CANO GARCINUÑO, A., ANTÓN GAMERO, M., MANRIQUE DE LARA, L.A., REY GALÁN, C. Plagio y ética en las publicaciones científicas. An Pediatr (Barc). 2019; 90(1): 1-2. https://doi.org10.1016/j.anpedi.2018.10.008
16. FANELLI, D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. Plos One. 2009; 4(5): e5738. Recuperado en: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
17. BUNGE, M. El fraude científico. La Nación. 23 de octubre 2000; Sect. Opinión. Recuperado en: http://wwwlanacioncomar/38036-el-fraude-cientifico,2000.
18. RIVERA, H. Fake peer review and inappropriate authorship are real evils. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2018; 34(2): e6-e. Recuperado en: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e6
19. SCHOFFERMAN, J, WETZEL, F.T., BONO, C. Ghost and guest authors: you can’t always trust who you read. Pain Medicine. 2015; 16(3): 416-20. Recuperado en: https://doi.org/10.1111/pme.12579
20. LO, B., WOLF, L.E., BERKELEY, A. Conflict-of-interest policies for investigators in clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine. 2000; 343(22): 1616-20. https://doi.org/10.056/NEJM200011303432206.
21. GHOOI, R.B. Conflict of interest in clinical research. Perspectives in Clinical Research. 2015; 6(1): 10-4. DOI: 4103/2229-3485.148794.
22. FIELD, M.J., LO, B. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, DC. National Academies Press, 2009. Recuperado en: https://www.fdanews.com/ext/resources/files/archives/i/IOM090504.pdf;
23. THOMPSON, D.F. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine. 1993; 329: 573. Recuperado en: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0795/04bd2e2161f0ae521ecdf84a46a809743051.pdf
24. EVANS, J.A., REIMER, J. Open access and global participation in science. Science. 2009; 323(5917): 1025. Recuperado en: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Evans5/publication/24026922_Open_Access_and_Global_ Participation_in_Science/links/02bfe510fdf7a067bc000000.pdf; https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154562
25. BEALL, J. Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals. The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2016; 98(2): 77-9. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2016.0056
2. SILVA HERNÁNDEZ, D., LLANES CUEVAS, R., RODRÍGUEZ SILVA, A. Manifestaciones impropias en la publicación científica. CULCyT: Cultura Científica y Tecnológica. 2008; 25 (año 5): 5-15. Recuperado en: ///C:/Users/jdelrio/Downloads/Dialnet-ManifestacionesImpropiasEnLaPublicacionCientifica-2734222%20(5).pdf; https://doi.org/10.1590/s0864-34662007000400009
3. MISRA, D.P., RAVINDRAN, V., AGARWAL, V. Integrity of authorship and peer review practices: Challenges and opportunities for improvement. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2018; 33(46): e287-e. Recuperado en: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e287.
4. BRONOWSKI, J. Los orígenes del conocimiento y la imaginación. Barcelona, Gedisa,1997.
5. WHO. Editor Big data and artifcial intelligence for achieving universal health coverage: an international consultation on ethics. Meeting report 12–13 October 2017; 2018; Miami, Florida, USA. World Health Organization Geneva.
6. ABAD-GARCÍA, M.F. El plagio y las revistas depredadoras como amenaza a la integridad científica. Anales de Pediatría. 2019; 90(1): 57 e1-e8. Recuperado en: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpedi.2018.11.003.
7. SALINAS, P.J. Fraude científico en el ambiente universitario. MedUla. 2004; 13: 42-7. Recuperado en: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pedro_Salinas/publication/28110698_
Fraude_cientifico_en_el_ambiente_universitario/links/540f4a690cf2df04e75a2c78/Fraude-cientifico-en-el-ambiente-universitario.pdf; https://doi.org/10.25267/rueda.2015.07
8. DAY, R.A., SÁENZ, M. Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Cómo escribir y publicar trabajos científicos. 3 ed. Washington D.C. Organización Panamericana de la Salud, 2005. https://doi.org/10.21149/spm.v58i5.8182
9. ORI. The Office of Research Integrity. 28 Guidelines at a glance on avoiding plagiarism. RCR Casebook: data acquisition an management [Internet]. 12 de abril de 2019. Recuperado en: https://ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-0
10. HART, C. Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London, Sage Publications. 1998; IX, 230 pp.
11. ORI. The Office of Research Integrity. Case Three: I really can’t acquire important data? RCR Casebook: Data acquisition an management [Internet]. 12 de abril de 2019. Recuperado en:
https://ori.hhs.gov/case-three-i-really-can’t-acquire-important-data
12. PARKER, M., KINGORI, P. Good and bad research collaborations: researchers’ views on science and ethics in global health research. Plos One. 2016; 11(10): e0163579. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163579
13. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Diciembre de 2018, p. 19. Recuperado en: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnre.2016.01.001
14. REYES, B.H. Honestidad y buena fe: dos pilares en la ética de las publicaciones biomédicas. Revista Médica de Chile. 2007; 135: 415-8. Recuperado en: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872007000400001
15. SOLÍS SÁNCHEZ, G., CANO GARCINUÑO, A., ANTÓN GAMERO, M., MANRIQUE DE LARA, L.A., REY GALÁN, C. Plagio y ética en las publicaciones científicas. An Pediatr (Barc). 2019; 90(1): 1-2. https://doi.org10.1016/j.anpedi.2018.10.008
16. FANELLI, D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. Plos One. 2009; 4(5): e5738. Recuperado en: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
17. BUNGE, M. El fraude científico. La Nación. 23 de octubre 2000; Sect. Opinión. Recuperado en: http://wwwlanacioncomar/38036-el-fraude-cientifico,2000.
18. RIVERA, H. Fake peer review and inappropriate authorship are real evils. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2018; 34(2): e6-e. Recuperado en: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e6
19. SCHOFFERMAN, J, WETZEL, F.T., BONO, C. Ghost and guest authors: you can’t always trust who you read. Pain Medicine. 2015; 16(3): 416-20. Recuperado en: https://doi.org/10.1111/pme.12579
20. LO, B., WOLF, L.E., BERKELEY, A. Conflict-of-interest policies for investigators in clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine. 2000; 343(22): 1616-20. https://doi.org/10.056/NEJM200011303432206.
21. GHOOI, R.B. Conflict of interest in clinical research. Perspectives in Clinical Research. 2015; 6(1): 10-4. DOI: 4103/2229-3485.148794.
22. FIELD, M.J., LO, B. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, DC. National Academies Press, 2009. Recuperado en: https://www.fdanews.com/ext/resources/files/archives/i/IOM090504.pdf;
23. THOMPSON, D.F. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine. 1993; 329: 573. Recuperado en: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0795/04bd2e2161f0ae521ecdf84a46a809743051.pdf
24. EVANS, J.A., REIMER, J. Open access and global participation in science. Science. 2009; 323(5917): 1025. Recuperado en: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Evans5/publication/24026922_Open_Access_and_Global_ Participation_in_Science/links/02bfe510fdf7a067bc000000.pdf; https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154562
25. BEALL, J. Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals. The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2016; 98(2): 77-9. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2016.0056