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

[kmccook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

And there is more about that  here:
 http://librarian.lishost.org/


On 9 May 2009 at 16:57, Joaquin Bustelo wrote:

> [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