Fake Journals - fake findings?
Lance
Posted by Bob Grant
[Entry posted at 7th May 2009 04:27 PM GMT]
Scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of six
publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed
pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical
journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted.
Elsevier is conducting an "internal review" of its publishing
practices after allegations came to light that the company produced a
pharmaceutical company-funded publication in the early 2000s without
disclosing that the "journal" was corporate sponsored.
The allegations involve the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint
Medicine, a publication paid for by pharmaceutical company Merck that
amounted to a compendium of reprinted scientific articles and one-
source reviews, most of which presented data favorable to Merck's
products. The Scientist obtained two 2003 issues of the journal --
which bore the imprint of Elsevier's Excerpta Medica -- neither of
which carried a statement obviating Merck's sponsorship of the
publication.
An Elsevier spokesperson told The Scientist in an email that a total
of six titles in a "series of sponsored article publications" were put
out by their Australia office and bore the Excerpta Medica imprint
from 2000 to 2005. These titles were: the Australasian Journal of
General Practice, the Australasian Journal of Neurology, the
Australasian Journal of Cardiology, the Australasian Journal of
Clinical Pharmacy, the Australasian Journal of Cardiovascular
Medicine, and the Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint [Medicine].
Elsevier declined to provide the names of the sponsors of these
titles, according to the company spokesperson.
"It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our
Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation
publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to
look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures," said Michael
Hansen, CEO of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, in a statement
issued by the company. "This was an unacceptable practice, and we
regret that it took place."
When confronted with the questionable publishing practices surrounding
the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine last week,
Elsevier indicated that it had no plans of looking into the matter
further, but that decision has apparently been reversed.
"We are currently conducting an internal review but believe this was
an isolated practice from a past period in time," Hansen continued in
the Elsevier statement. "It does not reflect the way we operate today.
The individuals involved in the project have long since left the
company. I have affirmed our business practices as they relate to what
defines a journal and the proper use of disclosure language with our
employees to ensure this does not happen again."
"I understand this issue has troubled our communities of authors,
editors, customers and employees," Hansen added in the statement. "But
I can assure all that the integrity of Elsevier's publications and
business practices remains intact."
Correction (May 7): The headline and original version of this story
incorrectly indicated that Elsevier had produced seven titles in their
"series of sponsored article publications" when in fact the publisher
produced only six. The Scientist regrets the error.
Peter Brooks
>
>
> "I understand this issue has troubled our communities of authors,
> editors, customers and employees," Hansen added in the statement. "But
> I can assure all that the integrity of Elsevier's publications and
> business practices remains intact."
>
particularly given the above sort of comment from the guilty parties!
It's unwise to put anything beyond the pharmaceutical companies.