| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Letters to the Editor |
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, Calle 119 No. 9-33, Piso 3, Bogotá, Colombia. e-mail: ajmorillo@yahoo.com
Editor:
I read with great interest—and no less surprise—the notice of the image license granted to authors who submit their materials to Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) publications (1). At the risk of being considered overpessimistic, I fail to see the advantages of this policy.
Decades before the current level of availability of scientific information, the publication of duplicate reports in several journals was justified on the basis of the thought that specialists read only the journals devoted to their area of interest (2). To target specialists from different disciplines, it could be alleged that this was an efficient way to expose them to critical issues that were being published in the scientific literature. Thus, Sir William Osler’s famous lecture on British medicine was reproduced by eight different journals (3).
That was back in 1897, however. As I have previously stated (4), I find it difficult to believe that nowadays, duplication of information can be justified at all. Duplication of information can be considered a modality of plagiarism (2), which in turn constitutes a form of fraud. The increasing and recurrent interest of scientific journals in publishing articles, editorials, or statements regarding the ethics of authorship and the issues related to duplication of information (5–8) should be considered a hint to avoid promoting any laxity in these rules. Other clues regarding the necessity of continuous surveillance are the reported dismissal or lack of knowledge of the basic rules of authorship by those in academic institutions—that is, potential authors (8,9). On the basis of premises dictated by use, these rules are being broken without eliciting sufficient response by the academic and government authorities that should be imposing exemplary punishment on violators (10,11).
Indeed, images constitute the most important piece of information in our specialty. If intellectual property of educational material has raised unanswered questions about whether such materials belong to the teachers who develop them or to the universities that act as their employers (12), I can only imagine that acquiring ownership of diagnostic images obtained in patients will be a delicate and controversial issue.
Permitting the publication of previously published images may open the gate to duplication of information, which can only serve to contaminate the already overstuffed imaging databases. We might still need Torquemadas as editors of scientific journals (5), with straightforward protocols for the investigation and withdrawal of duplicate or otherwise wrongful articles. In my opinion, Radiology should heed the editor’s own remarks regarding the specific interest in these issues (13) and continue with the ownership of copyright of all the material published in that journal. If authors feel the need to republish images or artwork, at least make them take pains to call at this closed gate every time they wish to overflow the information highway.
REFERENCES
Radiological Society of North America, 820 Jorie Boulevard, Oak Brook, IL 60523
Dr Morillo’s concerns are appropriate in that the RSNA and its editors are committed to the avoidance of duplicate publication. He makes the point forcibly and justifiably that duplicate publication is an egregious and unethical practice.
The issue facing the RSNA Board of Directors was one of simplifying the process whereby authors might use their own images copyrighted in RSNA publications by subsequently publishing them in textbooks for instructional purposes. We had heard from such authors that our previous policy was onerous. The only change in practice will be that such authors no longer have to seek permission to reprint their images in media that are pedagogic in intent and do not purport to be recording new observations. The operation of this policy will be kept under review and Dr Morillo can be sure that if abuses of the kind he has identified do occur then the matter will be revisited.
In the context of the ethical reporting of science, there must be a continual reexamination of the interface between philosophy and practice. My colleagues and I are grateful to Dr Morillo for his lively contribution to the vitality of such a dialogue.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
