Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39670895›Full record

ArticleRevista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina)2024

[Is science for everyone? bioethical challenges of current editorial practices]

Silvina Gutiérrez, Jorge Humberto Mukdsi

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Silvina GutiérrezUniversidad Nacional de Córdoba.
Jorge Humberto MukdsiUniversidad Nacional de Córdoba.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As Drumond Rennie put it, ‘Science does not come alive until it is shared publicly’ (1998), emphasising that the rapid advancement of scientific research requires its efficient and rigorous dissemination both to encourage the development of new strategies and to avoid duplication of effort and resources. The current model of scientific and technological research is facing a significant challenge: the cost associated with publishing its results. It is now increasingly common for publishers to impose fees on the scientific community to publish their results, generating debate about the impact of this practice on the fairness of scientific dissemination. Requiring researchers to pay publication costs would limit or exclude research from countries with limited resources, creating significant barriers to the dissemination of knowledge. It has been estimated that costs in some cases are up to ten times higher than what is considered adequate to cover the actual costs of publication (Grossmann & Brembs, 2021). This mismatch raises questions about the justification for such fees and the benefits to funders, given that the funds are often public, or even come from researchers' own pockets. Moreover, this current model supports a highly lucrative publishing industry, valued at approximately $10 billion (Global $10B Scientific & Technical Publishing Industry Report, 2019-2023), and is possibly one of the main causes of the emergence of so-called Predatory Journals. These journals, sometimes described as fraudulent, appear to be legitimate journals, but in reality distort certain publication practices, with a purely profit-driven ultimate purpose (Elmore & Weston, 2020), representing an ethical violation by exploiting the need of researchers for financial gain without providing true scientific value. Given the current landscape, it is crucial to reflect on how these practices affect equity in the dissemination of scientific knowledge?, and how publishing power can limit the dissemination of research on specific pathologies in emerging countries, restricting the right of communities to access crucial information and develop effective public health policies?. Undoubtedly, equity of access to and distribution of scientific knowledge is a fundamental principle that must be strongly defended. Paying high costs for scientific and technological publication not only jeopardises equal opportunities for researchers from regions with fewer resources, but also affects fairness in the distribution of knowledge. This economic barrier can result in a systematic exclusion of relevant perspectives and data from emerging countries, deepening inequalities and limiting global progress in critical areas such as public health. Consequently, there is a need to re-examine the current publication model to ensure that science continues to advance in a way that is fair and accessible to all, and to ensure that information vital to public health and scientific progress is not restricted by economic barriers, but is based on principles of fairness and transparency. Indeed, the scientific community must work together to promote the dissemination of knowledge in a manner that is accessible, equitable and free from harmful practices.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEditorial PoliciesInformation DisseminationPeriodicals as TopicPublishingHumansbioethicsResearchscientific publication

Identifiers

PMID39670895
PMCPMC11905779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.