中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2022, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (2): 150-158. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.202110290844

• 专题:学术诚信伦理建设 • 上一篇    下一篇

国内外出版伦理研究的热点与发展趋势的比较分析

王飞(), 王智博   

  1. 大连理工大学马克思主义学院,辽宁省大连市高新园区凌工路2号 116024
  • 收稿日期:2021-10-29 修回日期:2021-12-08 出版日期:2022-02-15 发布日期:2022-02-15
  • 作者简介:王 飞(ORCID:0000-0003-4073-4933),博士,教授,博士生导师,E-mail: hwangfei@163.com;|王智博,博士研究生。
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金一般项目“德语国家面向科研诚信的科研环境治理研究”(17BZX043);中央高校基本科研业务费项目“我国高校科研诚信建设状况的监测评估与改进建议”(DUT20RW209)

Hotspots and development trends of research on publication ethics in China and abroad: A comparative analysis

WANG Fei(), WANG Zhibo   

  1. School of Marxism Studies, Dalian University of Technology, 2 Linggong Road, Gaoxin District, Dalian 116024, China
  • Received:2021-10-29 Revised:2021-12-08 Online:2022-02-15 Published:2022-02-15

摘要:

【目的】 掌握国内外出版伦理研究的热点与发展趋势,为促进国内出版伦理研究提供参考。【方法】 使用VOSviewer软件对2021年9月30日前中文社会科学引文索引及《中文核心期刊要目总览》的中文文献和WoS核心合集收录的外文文献进行可视化分析,总结比较国内外出版伦理研究的热点及发展趋势。【结果】 国内外出版伦理研究存在较大差异:在研究内容上,国内研究的热点中心词主要是出版伦理、医学期刊、编辑伦理、编辑道德、出版业,国外研究的热点中心词主要是出版伦理、不端行为、利益冲突、作者署名、伦理;在发展趋势上,国内研究是由编辑伦理、职业道德走向同行评议、学术不端,关注的对象由内到外、逐渐扩大,而国外研究在伦理审查、作者署名、欺诈或学术不端行为方面研究的一贯性特征比较明显。【结论】 研究热点上出现差异的主要原因是出版伦理问题在国内尚未引起学术界的普遍关注以及国内的科研评价体制和学术期刊出版过程的开放程度不足,而国外研究范围更广、程度更深入;在未来发展趋势上,国内出版伦理研究可能会在利益冲突、作者署名、同行评议方面进行深入研究,掠夺性期刊、开放获取、撤稿问题将得到更多关注;国外可能会在提高开放获取质量、提升出版过程透明度、批判掠夺性期刊、分析撤稿问题等方面取得更大进展。

关键词: 出版伦理, 科研诚信, 同行评议, 作者署名, 利益冲突

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to grasp the research hotspots and development trends of publication ethics in China and abroad, and to provide references for promoting domestic research on publication ethics. [Methods] VOSviewer software was used to visually analyze the Chinese literatures included in Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index and A Guide to the Core Journals of China and the foreign literatures selected in the Web of Science (WoS) Core Database before September 30, 2021. Then we summarized and compared the hotspots and development trends of researches on publication ethics in China and abroad. [Findings] There are major differences between domestic and foreign studies. In terms of research content, the hot keywords of domestic studies are mainly publication ethics, medical journals, editors' ethics, editors' morals, and publishing industry, while those of foreign studies are mainly publication ethics, misconduct, conflict of interest, authorship, and ethics. In terms of development trends, domestic studies are moving from editors' ethics and professional ethics to peer review and academic misconduct, with the objects of concern expanding from inside to outside. Foreign studies are more consistently characterized by research on ethical review, authorship, fraud, or academic misconduct. [Conclusions] The primary reasons for the differences in research hotspots are that the issue of publication ethics has not yet attracted widespread academic attention in China, and that the domestic research evaluation system and the publication process of academic journals are lacking in openness. In contrast, foreign research is broader and more specific and profound. In regards to future development trends, domestic research on publication ethics may focus on conflict of interest, authorship, and peer review, and meanwhile predatory journals, open access, and retractions will receive more attention. Foreign studies may make more progress in improving the quality of open access, enhancing the transparency of the publication process, criticizing predatory journals, and analyzing retraction issues.

Key words: Publication ethics, Research integrity, Peer review, Authorship, Conflict of interest