药学科技期刊在科研伦理审查体系构建与执行中的实践进展与理论反思

Progress and Theoretical Reflection in the Construction and Implementation of the Research Ethical Review System in Pharmaceutical Science Journals

关键词:  科研伦理  伦理审查  药学  科技期刊  人体医学  动物实验

Key words:  Research Ethics  Ethical Review  Pharmacy  Scientific Journals  Human Medicine  Animal Experimentation

摘要:

本研究对我国69本药学类科技期刊的伦理审查现状进行了深入调研与分析,旨在为提高国内科技期刊伦理审查标准提供策略性建议。本研究通过查阅期刊官方网站的投稿指南、伦理政策板块,以及模拟投稿流程调研期刊伦理审查体系构建情况,同时随机选取了630篇各期刊近年来涉及人体医学和动物实验的研究论文进行审查。调查发现,约半数期刊(49.21%)在投稿指南中提及伦理审查要求,仅有14.29%的期刊官网设有专门的伦理板块,而投稿系统中明确伦理审查要求的期刊仅占20.97%。在审查的论文中,涉及人体医学的研究和动物实验研究提供伦理审查信息的占比分别为75.48%和50.00%。这些数据揭示了我国药学类科技期刊在伦理审查方面存在要求不够明确和执行力度需要加强的问题,映射出期刊伦理审查体系尚不够健全。针对这些问题,应从强化主管主办单位的引领作用、提高期刊审读抽查对伦理的重视程度、推动期刊自身不断完善伦理审查制度、加强编辑和审稿人对伦理审查知识的学习与应用入手,以提升整体的伦理审查水平,促进我国药学类科技期刊在伦理审查方面的规范化和专业化发展。

Abstract:

This study conducted an in-depth investigation and analysis of the current state of ethical review in 69 Chinese pharmaceutical science journals, aiming to provide strategic recommendations for improving the ethical review standards of domestic scientific journals. This study investigates the construction of journal ethics review systems by reviewing the submission guidelines and ethical policy sections on the official websites of journals, as well as simulating the submission process. Additionally, 630 research papers involving human medical and animal experiments published in various journals in recent years were randomly selected for review. The survey found that about half of the journals (49.21%) mentioned ethical review requirements in their submission guidelines, only 14.29% had a dedicated ethical section on their official websites, and only 20.97% of the submission systems explicitly stated ethical review requirements. Among the reviewed papers, the proportions of studies involving human medical research and animal experimental research that provided ethical review information were 75.48% and 50.00%, respectively. These data reveal that there are issues with unclear requirements and the need for enhanced enforcement in the ethical review of Chinese pharmaceutical science journals, indicating that the journal ethical review system is not yet comprehensive. To address these issues, it is necessary to strengthen the guiding role of responsible units, enhance the emphasis on ethics in journal review and spot checks, promote continuous improvement of the journals’ own ethical review systems, and strengthen the learning and application of ethical review knowledge by editors and peer reviewers, so as to improve the overall level of ethical review and promote the standardized and professional development of ethical review in Chinese pharmaceutical science journals.