论文部分内容阅读
【目的】调查医学论文作者单位署名不当现象的几种典型方式,分析这些现象背后的原因,提出相应的建议和措施,并探讨其伦理规范。【方法】对《第三军医大学学报》2016年10月26日—2016年12月31日545篇来稿及2015年同期444篇来稿中未标明作者和单位署名的论文进行调查,按照作者投稿时注册的信息打电话核实情况,并采用卡方检验对数据进行统计学分析。对《第三军医大学学报》收到的单位署名和论文内容不相关,病例资料来源与第一署名单位不一致的2篇论文进行案例调查,指出各自存在的伦理问题。【结果】2016年所调查时间段共有53篇(9.7%)在初投稿中无作者和单位署名,明显高于2015年所调查时间段[7篇(1.6%)],且差异有统计学意义(χ~2=28.51,P<0.01)。对2016年53篇未署名论文核实其登记的作者信息时,发现可能存在第三方代写、中介机构代投情况。对案例1作者单位署名和论文内容不相关,案例2病例资料来源与第一署名单位不一致的情况进行调查,经核实均属于作者隶属的机构单位与完成课题的机构单位不一致的单位署名不当。【结论】编辑要提高警惕并核实单位署名不当的论文,采取适当对策,制定有针对性的伦理规范以约束作者署名行为。
【Objective】 To investigate several typical ways of improper signatures of authors of medical papers, analyze the reasons behind these phenomena, put forward corresponding suggestions and measures, and discuss their ethical norms. 【Methods】 545 papers from Journal of Third Military Medical University from October 26, 2016 to December 31, 2016 and 444 papers from the same period in 2015 were not included in the author’s and unit’s signature. According to the author’s submission Registered information call to verify the situation, and the use of chi-square test for statistical analysis of the data. The two papers which are not related to the signatures and the contents of the essay received by the Journal of Third Military Medical University and the inconsistency between the sources of the cases and the first signatory indicate the respective ethical problems. 【Results】 A total of 53 articles (9.7%) of the surveyed time periods in 2016 were not signed by authors and organizations in the first submission, which was significantly higher than the survey period in 2015 [7 articles (1.6%)] and the difference was statistically significant (χ ~ 2 = 28.51, P <0.01). When verifying the registered author information of the 53 un-authored papers in 2016, it was found that there may be third-generation agencies and agency intermediaries. In case 1, there is no correlation between the author’s name and the content of the thesis, and the inconsistency between the source of case 2 and that of the first signatory. If there is any inconsistency between the author’s name and the name of the first signatory, all the agencies that belong to the author are inconsistent with the institution that completed the question. 【Conclusion】 The editors should be vigilant and verify the dissertations of the unit’s signature, and take appropriate measures to formulate targeted ethical norms to restrain the author’s signature behavior.