| 官鑫,陈辰,胡运梅,李欣欣,韩宏志,陈思含,李昕蔚,李锋.不同类型医学论文伦理审查要点及思考.编辑学报,2025,37(4):406-410 |
| 不同类型医学论文伦理审查要点及思考 |
| Ethical review points and considerations for different types of medical papers |
| |
| DOI：10.16811/j.cnki.1001-4314.2025.04.010 |
| 中文关键词: 伦理审查 医学论文 人体试验 动物实验 数据分析 |
| 英文关键词: ethical review medical papers human trials animal experiments data analysis |
| 基金项目:*中国高校科技期刊研究会“善锋·仁和”专项基金项目(CUJS-TJ-2025-028)；小编·仁和基金(XBRH2024-002-023)；全国高等学校文科学报研究会编辑学研究课题(PY2023013) |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 0 |
| 全文下载次数: 0 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 因医学论文研究对象的特殊性,需要建立较高的伦理规范,因此伦理审查是医学论文审查过程中必不可少的一部分。本文通过具体案例,总结了不同类型医学论文的伦理审查要点,并探讨了伦理审查在促进科学研究公平公正方面的意义。人体试验研究论文的伦理审查要点包括知情同意的透明性和自愿性、研究设计和方法的科学合理性,以及受试者选择和招募的公平性。动物实验论文的伦理审查应重点关注实验动物的福利,确保实验方法符合国际和国内的伦理标准,减少动物的痛苦和压力。数据分析类论文需确保数据来源的合法性和可靠性,受试者的隐私和个人信息得到充分保护。公共卫生研究类论文应尊重受试者的自主权和隐私,避免任何形式的歧视,确保研究结果的公正性和科学性。本文还针对上述不同类型医学论文,分别讨论了其伦理审查问题,并针对问题提出了相关建议。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Medical research publications, by virtue of their subject-specific ethical imperatives, demand rigorous adherence to ethical standards—a cornerstone of contemporary biomedical peer review. This study analyzes critical ethical dimensions across diverse medical manuscript categories through case-based discourse, elucidating the pivotal role of ethical oversight in safeguarding research integrity and equity. Specifically, ethical evaluation of clinical trial submissions emphasizes transparent informed consent processes, methodological rigor in protocol design, and equitable participant recruitment frameworks; review protocols for animal experimentation must rigorously assess animal welfare provisions, ensuring experimental methods align with established ethical guidelines while minimizing physiological and psychological distress; scholarly submissions involving data analytics require verification of data provenance legitimacy, robust de-identification procedures, and stringent compliance with privacy regulations; and ethical scrutiny of public health studies focuses on participant autonomy preservation, anti-discrimination safeguards in study design, and mechanisms to ensure equitable benefit distribution alongside scientific validity. The manuscript concludes by critiquing persistent ethical review challenges across these domains and advancing evidence-based recommendations to strengthen ethical governance in biomedical publishing ecosystems. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
