Casas-Martínez ML

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 459-463
PDF size: 82.26 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Unfortunately, since the amount of publications has become a parameter for qualifying the scientific production, abuses and even frauds can take place easily. Along with the rising of new investigation projects in which numerous scientists participate, the multi-authorship has also taken place into the scientific scene, with articles having been damaged, modified or altered purposely with erroneous information and plagiarism, against the true author’s will. The unconformities among the research team members reflect on a tense and stressful work atmosphere that interferes with investigation process itself; therefore, it is necessary to give and apply more transparency to these activities. The present article will analyze the recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors on authorships for medical articles. Here it is pointed out, when an authorship should be considered as one or not, also offering possible solutions to avoid this problem, such as, the elaboration of an author’s consent letters written previously to the publication of the article, the elaboration of credits and the limitation of qualified publications regarding each activity season.

REFERENCES

1. Reforma Periódico/staff. Pide Hwang perdón. Periódico Reforma. Cultura. 13 de enero de 2006. p. 6.

2. Pellegrini A, Goldbaum M, Silvi J. Producción de artículos científicos sobre salud en seis países de América Latina, 1973 a 1992. Rev Panam Salud Publica 1997;1:23-34.

3. Horace-Freeland J. The great betrayal: fraud in science. BMJ 2004;329:922.

4. Publication problems. [Editorial] Lancet 1985;2: 103.

5. Relman AS. Fraud and scientific publication. N Engl J Med 1983;308:1415.

6. Silva GA. La autoría múltiple y la autoría injustificada en los artículos científicos. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam 1990;108:141-152.

7. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Actualización en octubre de 2007. Disponible en http://www.icmje. org/

8. Miyahira J. Problemas éticos en la autoría. Rev Med Hered 2000;1:11.

9. Instituto Nacional de Derechos de Autor. Información sobre derechos de autor en México. México: Secretaría de Educación Pública; 2006. Disponible en http://www.sep.gob.mx/wb2/sep/sep_1425_informacion_general

10. Stepke LF, Quezada A, Rodríguez E. Investigación en salud. Dimensión ética. Chile: CIEB, Universidad de Chile; 2006. p. 269.

11. Dickersin K. Sobre la existencia y los factores de riesgo del sesgo de publicación. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam 1994;116:435-446.

12. L’Abbé KA, Detsky AS, O’Rourke K. El metaanálisis en la investigación clínica. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam 1994;116(4):226-244.

13. Thacker SB. Metanálisis: un enfoque cuantitativo para la integración de investigaciones. Bol Oficina Sanit Panam 1993;115(4):328-339.