Analysis of Scientific Publication Patterns on Ethics in Science

Article Sidebar

PDF (Español (España))

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Submitted: Mar 27, 2023
Received: May 25, 2023
Published: Jun 15, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26620/uniminuto.praxis.23.34.2023.72-94
Keywords:

Article Details

How to Cite
Rocha, E. S. S., Guevara-Pezoa, F., & González-Sanabria, J.-S. (2023). Analysis of Scientific Publication Patterns on Ethics in Science. Praxis Pedagógica, 23(34), 72–94. https://doi.org/10.26620/uniminuto.praxis.23.34.2023.72-94


Altmetrics

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Main Article Content

Ednéia Silva Santos Rocha
Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1478-6828
Felipe Guevara-Pezoa
Universidad Central de Chile
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4868-044X
Juan-Sebastián González-Sanabria
Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia

Abstract

This study aims to carry out a bibliometric analysis of articles on research ethics in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. Therefore, from the data collected in the databases, 4614 publications considered suitable for analysis were selected. Bibliometric indicators on the annual evolution of the publications, the most used keywords in the publications, the countries that publish the most on the subject, the sources of publication, among others, were elaborated. According to the analysis of the journals in which the most articles related to the subject of study are published, it is evident that only one of them explicitly includes them within its area of focus, the rest of the publications are especially in the areas of engineering. , pure sciences and health. On the other hand, among the countries with the greatest production in research ethics, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Mexico, Norway, Peru stand out, evidencing an interest on the part of Latin American countries, particularly in the last 5 years. which coincides with the dissemination and creation of public policies for scientific integrity. The findings obtained in the research provide the scientific community with a general framework on the state of the art of publications on the subject.

Author Biographies

Ednéia Silva Santos Rocha, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)

Professora Doutora do Curso de Graduação em Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação da Faculdade de Filosofia Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto (FFCLRP/USP). Doutora em Política Científica e Tecnológica pela Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP). Mestre em Ciência, Tecnologia e Sociedade pela Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar). Graduada em Biblioteconomia pela Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (UNESP/Marília).

Felipe Guevara-Pezoa, Universidad Central de Chile

Doctor por la Universidad de Sevilla

Máster en Gestión de la Ciencia y la Innovación

Universidad Central de Chile, Chile

References

Abad-Segura, E., De La Fuente, A. B., González-Zamar, M.-D., & Belmonte-Ureña, L. J. (2020). Effects of circular economy policies on the environment and sustainable growth: worldwide research. Sustainability, 12(14), e5792. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145792

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019

Bennis, W., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96-104. https://hbr.org/2005/05/how-business-schools-lost-their-way

Costa, M. C. (2004). Cooperação internacional, desenvolvimento e ciência na periferia. Horizontes, 22(2), 191-204. https://bit.ly/3Mtt1Bk

Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of “creating shared value”. California Management Review, 56(2), 130–153. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.2.130

D'Agostino, R. B., Massaro, J. M., & Sullivan, L. M. (2003). Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues – the encounters of academic consultants in statistics. Statistics in Medicine, 22(2), 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1425

Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., Peña, R., Agurto, S., & Winkvist, A. (2001). Researching domestic violence against women: methodological and ethical considerations. Studies in Family Planning, 32(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4465.2001.00001.x

Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists' Bias? An empirical support from US States Data. Plos One, 5(4), e10271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271

Gallagher, T. H., Waterman, A. D., Ebers, A. G., Fraser, V. J., & Levinson, W. (2003). Patients' and physicians' attitudes regarding the disclosure of medical errors. JAMA, 289(8), 1001–1007. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.8.1001

Lock, S. (1995). Research ethics - a brief historical review to 1965. Journal of Internal Medicine, 238(6), 513–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.1995.tb01234.x

Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 115-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00585.x

Maignan, I. (2001). Consumers' perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 57-72. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006433928640

Masic, I. (2014). Plagiarism in scientific research and publications and how to prevent it. Materia Socio Medica, 26(2), 141-146. https://doi.org/10.5455%2Fmsm.2014.26.141-146

Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (Minciencias). (2017). Política de ética de la investigación, bioética e integridad científica. Minciencias. https://minciencias.gov.co/sites/default/files/upload/noticias/politica-etica.pdf

Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT). (2019). Guidelines for research ethics in science and technology. Norwegian National Committee. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208856.255

NISO. (2022). Contributor Roles Taxonomy-CRediT. https://credit.niso.org/

Pezuk, J. A., Diniz, S. N., Pereira, R. M., Goncalves, I. D., Costa, N. M. L., & Dias, M. A. (2020). El uso de softwares para identificar plagio en textos académicos y educacionales. Educação E Pesquisa, 46, e217838. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634202046217838

Resnik, D. B. (2020, 23 de diciembre). What is ethics in research & why is it important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm

Roden, D. M., Pulley, J. M., Basford, M. A., Bernard, G. R., Clayton, E. W., Balser, J. R., & Masys, D. R. (2008). Development of a large-scale de-identified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 84(3), 362-369. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2008.89

Siemens, G. (2013). Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1380–1400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213498851

Visser, M., Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2021). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 20-41. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112

Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123, 321-335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8