Literature DB >> 26100362

Addressing polarisation in science.

Brian D Earp.   

Abstract

Ploug and Holm argue that polarisation in scientific communities can generate conflicts of interest for individual researchers. Their proposed solution to this problem is that authors should self-report whether they are polarised on conflict of interest disclosure forms. I argue that this is unlikely to work. This is because any author with the self-awareness and integrity to identify herself as polarised would be unlikely to conduct polarised research to begin with. Instead, I suggest that it is the role of (associate-level) editors of journals to detect and report on polarisation. One consequence of this view is that they need to be sufficiently familiar with the field of research they are evaluating to know whether polarisation is at stake. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Keywords:  Applied and Professional Ethics; Ethics; Public Health Ethics; Publication Ethics; Scientific Research

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26100362     DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2015-102891

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  1 in total

1.  Informed consent and registry-based research - the case of the Danish circumcision registry.

Authors:  Thomas Ploug; Søren Holm
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 2.652

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.