摘要：

目的 系统梳理国际生物医学期刊的图片出版伦理政策框架，为我国医学期刊完善相关规范提供参考。方法 采用网络调研法，查阅2025年发布的《期刊引证报告》（JCR）中影响因子排名前75位的生物医学期刊官方政策，摘录其图片出版伦理条款，并进行深入的文本分析。结果 国际生物医学期刊的图片出版伦理政策涵盖8个维度：图片完整性、AI生成图片限制、图片引用许可、患者图片呈现、实验动物图片呈现、图片学术不端检测与处理、视觉障碍读者包容性设计、期刊图片修改权限。该政策已从基础合规要求，演进为融合特殊群体保护、动物伦理关怀与期刊权限约束的多维治理框架，但在图片学术不端检测与处理机制上仍存在明显不足，是当前治理实践中的主要弱点。结论 我国医学期刊图片出版伦理治理的升级路径主要包括2个方面：完善政策文本，推行标准化审查清单，推动图片出版伦理审核规范化；以强制性关键图片数据存档为抓手，辅以技术筛查手段，并建立出版后同行评议机制，提升图片学术不端治理能力。

关键词: 生物医学期刊, 出版伦理, 图片出版伦理, 出版规范, 学术不端

Abstract:

Purposes This study aims to systematically review the framework for the image publication ethics policies of international biomedical journals， with the goal of providing policy references for improving relevant standards in Chinese medical journals. Methods A web-based survey method was employed to examine the official policies of the top 75 biomedical journals ranked by impact factor in the Journal Citation Reports （JCR） released in 2025. Clauses pertaining to image publication ethics were extracted and subjected to in-depth textual analysis. Findings The image publication ethics policies of international biomedical journals encompasses eight key dimensions： image integrity， restrictions on AI-generated images， image citation licensing， presentation of patient images， presentation of laboratory animal images， detection and handling of image-related misconduct， inclusive design for visually impaired readers， and authority for image modification by journals. These policies has evolved from basic compliance requirements into a multidimensional governance framework that integrates the protection of vulnerable groups， ethical considerations for animals， and self-imposed constraints on journal practices. However， notable deficiencies remain in detection and handling mechanisms for image-related misconduct， which constitutes a major weakness in current governance practices. Conclusions The pathways for enhancing image publication ethics governance in Chinese medical journals lie in two aspects： first， refining policy texts and implementing standardized review checklists to promote the normalization of image publication ethics review； second， leveraging mandatory archiving of critical image data as a key measure， complemented by technical screening tools and the establishment of post-publication peer review mechanisms， so as to improve the capacity to manage image-related academic misconduct.

Key words: Biomedical journal, Publication ethic, Image publication ethics, Publication standardization, Academic misconduct