A 10-year follow up of publishing ethics in China: what is new and what is unchanged.

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS

Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2019-09-02 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3

Katrina A Bramstedt, Jun Xu

{"title":"A 10-year follow up of publishing ethics in China: what is new and what is unchanged.","authors":"Katrina A Bramstedt, Jun Xu","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Organ donation and transplantation in China are ethically complex due to questionable informed consent and the use of prisoners as donors. Publishing works from China can be problematic. The objective of this study was to perform a 10-year follow up on Chinese journals active in donation and transplant publishing regarding the evolution of their publishing guidelines.Methods: Eleven Chinese journals were analyzed for 7 properties: (1) ethics committee approval; (2) procedure consent; (3) publishing consent; (4) authorship criteria; (5) conflict of interest; (6) duplicate publication; and (7) data integrity. Results were compared with our 2008 study data. Additionally, open access status, impact factor, and MEDLINE-indexing were explored.Results: Most journals heightened the ethical requirements for publishing, compared to the results of 2008. All 11 now require their published manuscripts to have data integrity. Ten of 11 require ethics committee approval and informed consent for the publication of research studies, whereas in the original study only 2 journals evidenced these requirements. Nine of 11 have criteria for authorship, require conflict of interest disclosure, and forbid duplicate publishing. None of the journals have a policy to exclude data that was obtained from unethical organ donation practices. Nine of 11 journals are MEDLINE-indexed but only 2 are open-access.Conclusions: Most journals have improved their general ethical publishing requirements but none address unethical organ donation practices.","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"4 ","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Organ donation and transplantation in China are ethically complex due to questionable informed consent and the use of prisoners as donors. Publishing works from China can be problematic. The objective of this study was to perform a 10-year follow up on Chinese journals active in donation and transplant publishing regarding the evolution of their publishing guidelines.

Methods: Eleven Chinese journals were analyzed for 7 properties: (1) ethics committee approval; (2) procedure consent; (3) publishing consent; (4) authorship criteria; (5) conflict of interest; (6) duplicate publication; and (7) data integrity. Results were compared with our 2008 study data. Additionally, open access status, impact factor, and MEDLINE-indexing were explored.

Results: Most journals heightened the ethical requirements for publishing, compared to the results of 2008. All 11 now require their published manuscripts to have data integrity. Ten of 11 require ethics committee approval and informed consent for the publication of research studies, whereas in the original study only 2 journals evidenced these requirements. Nine of 11 have criteria for authorship, require conflict of interest disclosure, and forbid duplicate publishing. None of the journals have a policy to exclude data that was obtained from unethical organ donation practices. Nine of 11 journals are MEDLINE-indexed but only 2 are open-access.

Conclusions: Most journals have improved their general ethical publishing requirements but none address unethical organ donation practices.

查看原文本刊更多论文

中国出版伦理十年追踪：什么是新的，什么是不变的。

背景：中国的器官捐献和移植在伦理上是复杂的，因为知情同意和使用囚犯作为捐献者是有问题的。出版来自中国的作品可能会有问题。本研究的目的是对积极从事捐赠和移植出版的中国期刊进行为期10年的跟踪调查，了解其出版指南的演变。方法：对11种中文期刊的7个性质进行分析：（1）伦理委员会批准；（2）程序同意；（3）出版许可；（4）作者标准；（5）利益冲突；（6）重复出版；以及（7）数据完整性。结果与我们2008年的研究数据进行了比较。此外，还探讨了开放获取状态、影响因素和MEDLINE索引。结果：与2008年的结果相比，大多数期刊都提高了出版的道德要求。所有11人现在都要求他们出版的手稿具有数据完整性。11份研究报告中有10份需要伦理委员会批准和知情同意才能发表，而在最初的研究中，只有2份期刊证明了这些要求。11个中有9个有署名标准，要求披露利益冲突，并禁止重复出版。没有一家期刊有政策排除从不道德的器官捐赠行为中获得的数据。11种期刊中有9种是MEDLINE索引的，但只有2种是开放获取的。结论：大多数期刊都改进了其一般道德出版要求，但没有一种涉及不道德的器官捐赠行为。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Research integrity and peer review

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

5 weeks