Transcript
  • 00:00    |    
    Initial credits
  • 00:06    |    
    Introduction
  • 01:09    |    
    Why do we publish?
    • To share with others
    • To subject to critical review
    • To establish reputation
    • To teach
    • "An ethical imperative"
  • 03:38    |    
    Problems in publishing
    • Publication bias
    • Double publication
    • Ownership of data and right to control publication
    • Industry sponsorship
    • Case of Synthroid and Betty Dong
    • Case of Flock workers and David Kern
    • Case of Apotex and Nancy Olivieri
    • Human subjects research
    • Poor citation practices
    • Plagiarism and self-plagiarism
  • 18:55    |    
    Authorship
  • What is an author?
  • 19:47    |    
    Problems with authorship
    • Disciplinary differences
    • Immutable escalation in number of authors
    • Games scientists play
    • Easiness to convey who is truly responsible for the science
  • 26:43    |    
    What has been done to fix this?
    • Greater oversight of authorship by journals
    • Contributor statements
    • Wide adoption by biomedical science journals
  • 28:54    |    
    Social science and medicine publication
    • Jon F. Merz personal contribution
    • University roles in authorship
  • 34:10    |    
    Peer review
    • Purpose
    • Promoting innovation and progressive science
    • Kassirer and Campion view on peer review
    • Peer review process
    • Peer review practicalities
    • Unfunded mandate
  • 45:10    |    
    What is a peer review?
    • Confidential communication to the editor
    • Communication to the authors
    • Proposal peer reviews are more formulaic
  • 48:07    |    
    Advice to do peer review
    • Personal anecdote
    • Sources to understand peer review
  • 52:17    |    
    Authorship and peer review cases
    • Case 1
    • Case 2
    • Case 3
    • Case 4
  • 01:07:53    |    
    Final credits


Authorship and Peer Review in Science

New Media  | 16 de abril de 2015  | Vistas: 230

Jon Merz points out the importance of publishing for the advancement of science and humanity as a whole. He regards writing as an ethical imperative that every professional has when they have discovered or developed new findings in their particular fields. He continues explaining the peer review process and its pros and cons within and without objective practice. Finally, Jon Merz analyses four different cases and their problems and assertions in the creation of a well-rounded and scientifically-proven paper.




Conferencista

Jon F. Merz is associate professor of Medical Ethics and Health…

IDEAS DE LA LIBERTAD

Nuestra misión es la enseñanza y difusión de los principios éticos, jurídicos y económicos de una sociedad de personas libres y responsables.

Universidad Francisco Marroquín