中国科技期刊研究 ›› 2019, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (10): 1054-1058. doi: 10.11946/cjstp.201905210380

• 质量建设 • 上一篇    下一篇

777篇中文医学动物实验论文伦理规范调查分析

林加西   

  1. 《广东医科大学学报》编辑部,广东省湛江市霞山区文明东路2号 524023
  • 收稿日期:2019-05-21 修回日期:2019-08-20 出版日期:2019-10-15 发布日期:2019-10-15
  • 作者简介:林加西(ORCID:0000-0001-5496-9966),学士,副编审,E-mail:2335814925@qq.com。
  • 基金资助:
    广东省科学技术期刊编辑学会基金(201805);广东省高校学报研究会基金(20180312)

Investigation and analysis of the ethical norms in 777 Chinese medical papers related to animal experiments

LIN Jiaxi   

  1. Editorial Office of Journal of Guangdong Medical University, 2 East Wenming Road, Xiashan District, Zhanjiang 524023, China
  • Received:2019-05-21 Revised:2019-08-20 Online:2019-10-15 Published:2019-10-15

摘要:

【目的】 了解我国医学科技期刊关于动物实验伦理规范的现状,分析其影响因素,以促进我国医学科技期刊动物实验伦理审查制度的建设。【方法】 以777篇涉及医学动物实验的中文文献为研究对象,分析其标注动物实验伦理的规范程度,探讨发表期刊的类别、项目资助情况、第一作者或通信作者的学位和职称与论文动物实验伦理规范的关系。【结果】 仅82篇(10.5%)论文中写明经伦理审查并同意开展,23篇(3.0%)注明遵守实验动物管理条件、饲养及实验过程遵守“3R原则”,14篇(1.8%)注明伦理审查编号,383篇(49.3%)交代饲养环境,475篇(61.1%)完整地叙述动物麻醉方式与手术步骤,150篇(19.3%)写明具体的动物处死方式。发表于核心期刊的论文的伦理审查、伦理审查批号及“3R原则”注明情况均优于发表于非核心期刊的论文(P<0.05或0.01)。论文是否依托基金项目及所依托基金项目的不同等级,与其注明经伦理审查的情况差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。作者的不同学位或职称与其论文注明经伦理审查的情况差异均无统计学意义(Hc=0.322860或0.913902,均为P>0.05)。【结论】 我国医学科技期刊动物实验伦理规范情况有待改善,建议加强动物实验伦理审查制度的建设,充分发挥编辑对作者动物实验伦理意识与规范的导向作用,以提高出版质量。

关键词: 医学科技期刊, 医学伦理, 编辑审查, 实验动物伦理

Abstract:

[Purposes] In order to promote the construction of animal ethics review system of medical scientific journals in China, this paper explores the present situation of animal ethics in medical scientific journals by analyzing the influence factors. [Methods] The 777 Chinese papers related to medical animal experiments were selected as research subjects. We analyzed the current status of the ethical norms for labeling animal experiments in these papers, and explored the correlation between classes of the published journals, the projects support, and the degree and professional title of the author or corresponding author and the ethical standards in animal experiments. [Findings] Of these 777 papers, only 82 papers (10.5%) are identified as having been reviewed by ethical censorship, 23 papers (3.0%) obey the laboratory animal management conditions and animals' breeding and the corresponding experiments comply with the 3R Principle, while 14 papers (1.8%) introduce the ethical review numbers, 383 papers (49.3%) reveal their animal breeding environment, 475 papers (61.1%) give complete account of animal anesthesia and their operation steps, and 150 papers (19.3%) present the detailed animal execution methods. Papers from core journals witness more ethical reviews, ethical review numbers, and statements of 3R Principle than those published in non-core journals (P<0.05 or 0.01). There is no significant difference (P>0.05) in the ethical examination relating to the research or the different levels of the funding projects on which the papers relied. There is also no significant difference for first authors or corresponding authors with different degree or different professional titles (Hc=0.322860 or 0.913902, P>0.05). [Conclusions] Medical scientific journals in China urge for improvements in the present animal ethical administration. More strength should be applied to construct the ethical examination system of animal experiment. Editors from journals should provide proper guidance to authors in animal ethical consciousness and its administration to improve the quality of publication.

Key words: Medical scientific journal, Medical ethics, Editor evaluation, Experimental animal ethic