RESUMO
Compared with data that is initially collected for research purposes, the mandatory authorization of a government database for secondary use deserves greater scrutiny because it consists of information that is collected initially for administrative purposes. Using the case of Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) Database as an example, this paper analyzes the ethical issues that emerge when the research participants are "participated" in studies without their consent, according to the current policy. The proponents of secondary use for research purposes maintain that the authorized use of the NHI Database is necessary for public interests, while the opponents argue that the potential lack of democratic accountability and the infringement on people's rights to privacy and information autonomy is unwarranted. Drawing on the solidarity-based approach, this paper proposes a temporal solution as a possible reform direction for better ethical justification of the secondary use of the NHI Database.
Assuntos
Gerenciamento de Dados/ética , Bases de Dados Factuais , Ética em Pesquisa , Governo , Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido/ética , Programas Obrigatórios/ética , Programas Nacionais de Saúde , Temas Bioéticos , Dissidências e Disputas , Análise Ética , Direitos Humanos , Humanos , Privacidade , Projetos de Pesquisa , Responsabilidade Social , TaiwanRESUMO
RESUMEN La revisión por pares garantiza que los materiales publicados sean válidos y confiables, tanto como sea posible. El objetivo fue reconocer la importancia del trabajo de los revisores en las publicaciones científicas médicas y de la observación de los aspectos éticos durante su desempeño. Las revisiones por pares pueden ser a ciegas, a doble ciegas o abiertas, cada una de ellas con ventajas y desventajas. Durante las publicaciones de resultados de investigaciones científicas pueden producirse sesgos por parte de los revisores. Entre los sesgos de los revisores relacionados con faltas éticas se encuentran: los incumplimientos en plazos de revisión, la superficialidad de las revisiones, el lenguaje ofensivo contra editores o autores, el "amiguismo cognitivo" y el "sesgo de ego" por propia voluntad, entre otros. No obstante, es posible implementar acciones para minimizar los sesgos relacionados con esas faltas éticas. El trabajo de los revisores es digno de reconocer, teniendo en cuenta que casi siempre es realizado durante el tiempo libre, de forma voluntaria y por personas de alto prestigio como investigadores. En el mundo actual esta labor ha sido amenazada con la proliferación de revistas predadoras, pero también destacan los intentos para su reivindicación y promoción, como el del sitio web Publons. En el trabajo de los revisores intervienen múltiples factores, a veces contradictorios: intereses, deberes, derechos; pero todos ellos deben ponderarse sobre la base de una sólida formación y desempeño éticos (AU).
ABSTRACT Peer reviews guarantee published materials be as valid and reliable as it be possible. Recognize reviewers' work importance on scientific medical publication as well as the ethics issues to be accomplished during their performance. Development: Peer reviews could be single blind, double blind or open, each one with its advantages and disadvantages. During scientific research results publications, peer reviewer biases could be occurred. Some peer reviewer biases are related to ethical mistakes: no fulfillment of time limits, superficial evaluations, offense languages against editors or authors, at will cognitive cronyism and "ego bias", among others. Nevertheless, measures' implementation to minimize biases related to ethical mistakes is possible. The reviewers' work is suitable to be recognized, taking into account it is done almost all the times on free time, without financial compensation and by researchers with recognized prestige. In the present word, even when this work has been threat by predatory journals spreads, some intent to do it justice and promotion are highlight, as do the website Publons. Multiple factors, contradictory sometime, are involved in the reviewers' work: interests, duties, rights; but all of them should be pondering over the base of a solid ethic education and behavior (AU).