Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Yes Richard, you are right.
However, this different direction is about something which is also important for everybody: academic & non-academic authors, users of the new knowledge, and tax payers who foot the bill in the end from both sides: (a) creating the knowledge (academic grants) and (b) the use of it for the benefit of the public (public health and healthcare).
What is the position of BMJ Group for acknowledging of original works from non-academics in the publications of BMJ Group?
Does BMJ Group leave this only to the conscience of the authors, or is it something actively required?
What happens if an author of earlier original work informs BMJ Group that his moral rights have been infringed by a later publication in BMJ Group?
All the best,----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Saitz" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 12:02 PM
Jordan
********
Jordan Panayotov, MEc, MPH (Health Economics)
Director
Independent Centre for Analysis & Research of Economies
Melbourne, Australia
www.icare.biz
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: unpublished research - is it ethical
Seems to me the issue here is not about publication in journals.
When research is done there are risks to participants. Those risks are only
justified if there are benefits (to them or to science). If the research
results are not available to anyone then they cannot benefit anyone (beyond
those in the study). If they cannot benefit anyone else, then the risk of
the study was not justified. (an internationally accepted ethical
principle).
One can make a solid case for peer review (not that it is perfect but it is
difficult to argue that zero review is a better system for vetting
scientific results). But the issue here is not (in my view) publication in
peer review journals. The ethical issue is making the results available
because if that is not done, the risk was not justified (and one could
ask--why was it done if not to share it).
One might imagine doing a study and telling participants---we will do this
study but we will never publish the results. Anywhere. Because we don't
think peer reviewed journals are good. We will keep them secret. Or, we wont
share them because we are too busy to write them down...
Would the participant agree? Should they? Is that ethical? And to return to
the focus of the listserve, what is the impact on systematic reviews that
try to determine the efficacy of interventions when such studies are not
reported? (they become either useless or unknowingly biased...)
Best
Rich Saitz