[Marxism] Elsevier created fake peer-reviewed journal for Merck

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxx>]

[Since this article is available only behind a subscription firewall that
demands all sorts of personal information and includes -- way at the bottom,
after a ton of questions, where it might easily be missed -- "permission" to
be spammed with the answer pre-set to "yes" and not only from this
publication, but third parties, I am taking the liberty of reprinting here
in toto to spare comrades having to register with this outfit.]

The original is here: 

<http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/blog.jsp?type=blog
&o_url=blog/display/55671&id=55671>

Merck published fake journal
Posted by Bob Grant
[Entry posted at 30th April 2009 04:27 PM GMT]
View comments(24) | Comment on this news story   
 
Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of a
publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but
contained only reprinted or summarized articles--most of which presented
data favorable to Merck products--that appeared to act solely as marketing
tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship. 

"I've seen no shortage of creativity emanating from the marketing
departments of drug companies," Peter Lurie, deputy director of the public
health research group at the consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen,
said, after reviewing two issues of the publication obtained by The
Scientist. "But even for someone as jaded as me, this is a new wrinkle." 

The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which was published by
Exerpta Medica, a division of scientific publishing juggernaut Elsevier, is
not indexed in the MEDLINE database, and has no website (not even a defunct
one). The Scientist obtained two issues of the journal: Volume 2, Issues 1
and 2, both dated 2003. The issues contained little in the way of
advertisements apart from ads for Fosamax, a Merck drug for osteoporosis,
and Vioxx. (Click here and here to view PDFs of the two issues.) 

The claim that Merck had created a journal out of whole cloth to serve as a
marketing tool was first reported by The Australian about three weeks ago.
It came to light in the context of a civil suit filed by Graeme Peterson,
who suffered a heart attack in 2003 while on Vioxx, against Merck and its
Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharp & Dohme Australia (MSDA). 

In testimony provided at the trial last week, which was obtained by The
Scientist, George Jelinek, an Australian physician and long-time member of
the World Association of Medical Editors, reviewed four issues of the
journal that were published from 2003-2004. An "average reader" (presumably
a doctor) could easily mistake the publication for a "genuine" peer reviewed
medical journal, he said in his testimony. "Only close inspection of the
journals, along with knowledge of medical journals and publishing
conventions, enabled me to determine that the Journal was not, in fact, a
peer reviewed medical journal, but instead a marketing publication for
MSD[A]." 

He also stated that four of the 21 articles featured in the first issue he
reviewed referred to Fosamax. In the second issue, nine of the 29 articles
related to Vioxx, and another 12 to Fosamax. All of these articles presented
positive conclusions regarding the MSDA drugs. "I can understand why a
pharmaceutical company would collect a number of research papers with
results favourable to their products and make these available to doctors,"
Jelinek said at the trial. "This is straightforward marketing." 

Jelinek also pointed out several "review" articles that only cited one or
two references. He described one of these articles as "simply a summary of
an already published article," and noted that they were authored by "B&J
Editorial." 

"It appears that 'B&J' (presumably Bone and Joint) refers to the Journal,
and B&J editorial presumably to the publishers or owners as there is no
editor of the journal," Jelinek said in his testimony. "This is a subtle
attribution, and many readers may not realise that the paper was written by
the owners or publishers of the journal, presuming that is who would write
under the heading of 'editorial'." 

Lurie, in examining two of the issues for The Scientist, agreed that one
particularly strange element of the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint
Medicine is that it contains "review" articles that cite just one or two
references. "I've never seen anything quite like this," he said. "Reviews
are usually swimming in references." For example, one article on
osteoporosis labeled above the title as a "meta-analysis" cites two
references -- one itself a meta-analysis. "To the jaundiced eye, [the
journal] might be detected for what it is: marketing," he said. "Many
doctors would fail to identify that and might be influenced by what they
read." 

Lurie noted that the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine is akin
to other publishing strategies employed by drug companies; paying for
supplements to existing journals or publishing compilations of original
research articles that tend to lack scientific rigor (so-called
"throwaways"). "It's kissing cousin to two other tricks that the [drug]
companies pull." 

In response to several questions about the publication posed by The
Scientist, an MSDA spokesperson wrote in an email: "MSDA understood that
Elsevier envisaged the complimentary publication would draw on the vast
resources of Elsevier, publishers of many leading peer-reviewed journals
including Lancet, Bone, Joint Bone Spine and others, to deliver novel and
timely full text articles and abstracts to physicians." Many of the articles
appearing in the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine were in
fact reprints or summaries of studies that originally appeared in other
Elsevier journals. 

A spokesperson for Elsevier, however, told The Scientist, "I wish there was
greater disclosure that it was a sponsored journal." Disclosure of Merck's
funding of the journal was not mentioned anywhere in the copies of issues
obtained by The Scientist. 

Elsevier acknowledged that Merck had sponsored the publication, but did not
disclose the amount the drug company paid. In a statement emailed to The
Scientist, Elsevier said that the company "does not today consider a
compilation of reprinted articles a 'Journal'." 

"Elsevier acknowledges the concern that the journals in question didn't have
the appropriate disclosures," the statement continued. "It is worth noting
that project in question was produced 6 years ago and disclosure protocols
have evolved since 2003. Elsevier's current disclosure policies meet the
rigor and requirements of the current publishing environment." 

The Elsevier spokesperson said the company wasn't aware of how many copies
of the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine were produced or how
the publication was distributed in Australia, but noted that "the common
practice for sponsored journals is that doctors receive them complimentary."
The spokesperson added that Elsevier had no plans to look further into the
matter. 

One of the members of Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine's
"Honorary Editorial Board," Peter Brooks, a rheumatologist in Australia,
said he didn't recall who asked him to serve on the board, but noted that he
was on Merck's Asian Pacific and international advisory boards from the mid
1990s until about 2004, as well as the advisory boards of other
pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Amgen. "You get involved in a
whole bunch of things at this level," Brooks said, adding that he had put
his name on "a few advertorials" for pharmaceutical companies about 10 years
ago. 

As for the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, he said, "If it
would have been put to me that [the journal] was just sort of a throwaway,
then I would have said 'no'" to serving on its editorial board. He said he
was never paid for his role, adding that he "didn't ever get [manuscripts]
to review or anything like that," while on the board, because the journal
did not accept original manuscripts for review. 

"Having looked at one issue, it actually had some marketing studies," Brooks
said. "It also had papers that were excerpted from other peer-reviewed
journals. I don't think it's fair to say it was totally a marketing
journal." 

Editor's note (April 30): This story has been updated from a previous
version. 
 


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu