首都医科大学学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (4): 727-732.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7795.2024.04.025

• 专论与综述 • 上一篇    下一篇

医学科技期刊为主体的学术不端防范体系研究

高  健1, 李秋萍2,  闫  红1*    

  1. 1.《首都医科大学学报》编辑部,北京 100069;2.首都医科大学附属北京天坛医院教育处,北京 100070
  • 收稿日期:2024-06-03 出版日期:2024-08-21 发布日期:2024-07-08
  • 通讯作者: 闫 红 E-mail:yanhong@ccmu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    翰笔计划医学中青年编辑”科研项目(2023)华誉-美捷登专项(HBJH-2023-B21)。

Study on the prevention system of research misconduct in medical science journals

Gao Jian1, Li Qiuping2, Yan Hong1*   

  1. 1.Editorial Office of Journal of Capital Medical University, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069,China;2. Department of Education, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100070,China
  • Received:2024-06-03 Online:2024-08-21 Published:2024-07-08
  • Supported by:
    This study was supported by Xia & He Publishing-Medjaden Special Foundation of“HanBi Program for Young Medical Editors”(HBJH-2023-B21). 

摘要: 目的  从医学科技期刊编辑部角度提出建立预防学术不端的体系,从而减少医学学科里的学术不端现象,提高期刊自身声誉。方法  对编辑、教师、管理者、学生进行深度访谈和调查问卷,采用SPSS 22软件处理数据,采用t检验,本次调查Cronbach's α系数为0.736,具有较高的内在一致性,代表调查问卷的信度较高。通过了解其对学术不端教育、防范的认知和现状,对初步框架进行验证和完善。结果  大部分受访者(>91%)对学术不端的认知明确,大部分受访者(>85%)对于学术不端行为的态度端正。在编辑经常遇见的学术不端行为中,工作11~15年的编辑对于“未获伦理审批或无法证明”的选择比例最高,差异有统计学意义(P=0.039)。初中级职称的编辑对编辑部建立中途更改作者署名、顺序及撤稿制度的支持率高于高级职称编辑(P=0.025)。初中级职称编辑在对“对学术不端的惩罚措施”中“发布公告”的选择比例明显高于高级职称编辑,差异有统计学意义(P=0.001)。结论  导致学术不端行为的发生原因是多方面的,因此,不仅要加强作者的道德自律和社会的多方监督,健全相关法律制度,构建科学完善的学术不端防范体系也尤为重要。本文从道德教育-法律依据-制度建设-技术控制-认定处罚5个层面建立医学期刊编辑部学术不端防范体系,有利于预防学术不端论文的产生。

关键词: 学术不端, 防范体系, 医学科技期刊, 编辑部

Abstract: Objective   To establish a system to prevent research misconduct from the perspective of editorial office of medical sci-tech journals, so as to reduce the phenomenon of research misconduct in medical disciplines and improve the journal reputation. Methods  Editors, faculty, administrators, and students were deeply interviewed, and questionnaires were also conducted. SPSS 22 software was used to process the data and t test was adopted for comparison. Cronbach's α coefficient of this survey is 0.736, indicating a high internal consistency. It means the questionnaire is reliable. The preliminary framework was verified and improved based on the survey result of the cognition and current situation of research misconduct education and prevention. Results  Most of the respondents (> 91%) had a clear understanding of academic misconduct, and most of the respondents (> 85%) had a correct attitude towards academic misconduct. Among the research misconducts frequently encountered by editors, the most popular choice appeared to be “no ethical approval or unproven” for editors who had worked for 11 to 15 years (P=0.039), and the difference was statistically significant. The junior and intermediate editors were more prone to the establishment of the system of changing author signature, order and retraction(P=0.025). The proportion of editors with junior and intermediate titles who chose publishing announcement in the punishment measures for research misconduct was significantly higher than that of editors with senior titles (P=0.001), and the difference was statistically significant. Conclusion  There are many causes for research misconduct. Therefore, it is particularly important not only to strengthen the moral self-discipline of the authors, but also to strengthen the supervision of the society, improve the relevant legal system and build a scientific and perfect research misconduct prevention system. This paper discussed the prevention system of research misconduct in the editorial office of medical journals from five levels: moral education, legal basis, system construction, technical control and recognition and punishment, which is conducive to preventing the production of research misconduct papers.

Key words: research misconduct, prevention system, medical science journals, editorial office

中图分类号: