Objectives: To examine the perspectives of journal editors and authors on overlapping and redundant publications in clinical research.Design: Pretested cross-sectional survey, containing both forced choice and open ended questions, administered by mail to the senior editors and one randomly selected author from all journals in the Abridged Index Medicus that published clinical research.Main measurements: The views of editors and authors about the extent of redundant publications, why they occur, how to prevent and respond to cases, and when the publication of (...) overlapping manuscripts is justified.Results: Seventy two per cent of editors and 65% of authors completed the survey. There was consensus between both groups that redundant publications occur because authors feel the pressure to publish and journals do not do enough to publicise, criticise, and punish cases, and that the publication of most types of overlapping articles is unacceptable. Sixty seven per cent of authors but only 31% of editors felt, however, that it was justified to publish an overlapping article in a non-peer reviewed symposium supplement, and 68% of editors but 39% of authors supported imposing restrictions on guilty authors’ future submissions. In written comments, 15% to 30% of both groups emphasised that it was justified to publish overlapping articles when there were different or non-English-speaking audiences, new data, strengthened methods, or disputed findings.Conclusions: Editors, authors, and other academic leaders should together develop explicit guidelines that clarify points of contention and ambiguity regarding overlapping manuscripts. (shrink)

Maʼamar "Hatsileni mi-pezur ha-nefesh": a praḳṭishe hilf far meḥankhim, elṭern, mener un froyen ... -- Derashat hitḥazḳut be-ʻinyan "ahavat ḥaverim" -- Yalḳuṭ igrot u-mikhtavim : liḳuṭ amarim u-khetavim, ratsuf be-tokham niṭfe ḥizuḳ ... .

Volume 20, Issue 6, June 2020, Page 22-24.

In early 2017, Nevada amended its Uniform Determination of Death Act, in order to clarify the neurologic criteria for the determination of death. The amendments stipulate that a determination of death is a clinical decision that does not require familial consent and that the appropriate standard for determining neurologic death is the American Academy of Neurology’s guidelines. Once a physician makes such a determination of death, the Nevada amendments require the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment within twenty-four hours with limited exceptions. (...) Neurologists have generally supported Nevada’s amendments for clarifying the diagnostic standard and limiting the ability of family members to challenge it. However, it is more appropriate to view the Nevada amendments with concern. Even though the primary purpose of the UDDA is to ensure that all functions of a person’s entire brain have ceased, the AAN guidelines do not accurately assess this. In addition, by characterizing the determination of death as solely a clinical decision, the Nevada legislature has improperly ignored the doctrine of informed consent, as well as the beliefs of particular faiths and cultures that reject brain death. Rather than resolving controversies regarding brain death determinations, the Nevada amendments may instead instigate numerous constitutional challenges. (shrink)

Technological progress may eventually produce sophisticated robots with human-like traits that result in humans forming meaningful relationships with them. Such relationships would likely lead to a demand for human–artificial intelligence matrimony. U.S. Supreme Court decisions that expanded the definition of marriage to include interracial and same-sex couples, as well as those that have not extended marriage to polygamous relationships, provide guidance regarding the criteria that human–AI would have to meet to successfully assert a right to marry. Ultimately, robots will have (...) to possess certain characteristics of personhood to marry, including the capacity to contract and to engage in an intimate relationship. Alternatively, if AIs can simulate these abilities sufficiently, we may believe that they have these capacities. Even if AIs genuinely possess the capabilities necessary to enter into a marriage, it is social acceptance of intelligent non-humans as life partners that will likely influence legal development is this realm rather than personhood criteria. However, AIs are likely to face bias due to their “artificial” rather than biological nature. Yet, Peter Singer’s influential argument regarding speciesism in the context of animal rights implies that AIs with specific human-like qualities cannot be justifiably denied certain rights. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 12, December 2019, Page 46-47.

В книге изложены понятия, структуры, функции, основные типы юридического сознания, культуры и антикультуры в обществе. Особое внимание уделено психологическому механизму деятельности, мерам юридической ответственности и правовой защиты людей, их коллективов и организаций. Для юристов (ученых и практиков, аспирантов и адъюнктов), студентов магистратуры и бакалавриата юридических вузов и факультетов. Монография выполнена при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках научного проекта № 18-011-01095.

Russkai︠a︡ t︠erkovʹ i drugie statʹi -- V temnykh religioznykh luchakh.

Книга предназначена для студентов, преподавателей и научных сотрудников высших учебных заведений, занимающихся вопросами философии.

Предназначено для студентов художественных вузов и факультетов, а также для учащихся профессиональных учебных заведений художественного профиля.

В монографии внимание уделяется раскрытию понимания мыслителями соотношения утопии, идеала и реальности. Острота этих вопросов в современных условиях очевидна. Для специалистов.

В книге представлено понимание границ в психотерапии с позиций аналитической психологии. Для практикующих психологов и психотерапевтов, а также для студентов психологических вузов.

Издание предназначено для студентов, магистрантов, аспирантов филологических факультетов вузов и широкого круга читателей.

Исследование иллюстрируется примерами анализа самого современного искусства в сферах живописи, театра, кино, литературы.

В доступной форме ученики и последователи В. И. Свидерского рассказывают об этом выдающемся "генераторе" новых философских идей, о значении этих идей в преодолении кризисных явлений в современной философии.

Издание содержит: научное изучение времени и информации; философское изучение времени и информации; практическое применение знаний о времени и информации и др.

В монографии рассматривается соотношение индивидуальных и универсальных начал в праве как эффективное средство решения многих правовых проблем, как руководство в законодательной и судебной деятельности.

Книга рассчитана на тех, кто по своей специальности занимается философией техники и в дальнейшем углубят свои знания в этом вопросе, а также для широкого круга читателей.

Книга является едва ли не первой попыткой отрефлектировать, как происходило становление философского самосознания в России.

Книга предназначена для специалистов в области истории философии, студентов и аспирантов-философов, преподавателей философии и всех интересующихся философией и ее историей.

В форме увлекательных бесед показаны не только высоты и бездны европейской философии, но и значительные достижения русской философской школы, уходящей своими корнями в православное мировосприятие. Для всех, кто хочет научиться серьезно мыслить.

In early 2017, Nevada amended its Uniform Determination of Death Act, in order to clarify the neurologic criteria for the determination of death. The amendments stipulate that a determination of death is a clinical decision that does not require familial consent and that the appropriate standard for determining neurologic death is the American Academy of Neurology’s guidelines. Once a physician makes such a determination of death, the Nevada amendments require the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment within twenty-four hours with limited exceptions. (...) Neurologists have generally supported Nevada’s amendments for clarifying the diagnostic standard and limiting the ability of family members to challenge it. However, it is more appropriate to view the Nevada amendments with concern. Even though the primary purpose of the UDDA is to ensure that all functions of a person’s entire brain have ceased, the AAN guidelines do not accurately assess this. In addition, by characterizing the determination of death as solely a clinical decision, the Nevada legislature has improperly ignored the doctrine of informed consent, as well as the beliefs of particular faiths and cultures that reject brain death. Rather than resolving controversies regarding brain death determinations, the Nevada amendments may instead instigate numerous constitutional challenges. (shrink)