RE: Merck published fake journal

["Erwin, Patricia J." <erwin.patricia@mayo.edu>]

In some ways this isn't totally new. Do any of the participants 
recall the angst of drug-company funded supplements? They were 
allowed to enter the US, and NLM ended up doing some negotiating 
so that they could at least be indexed.

Also note the response - it wasn't really us, it was the 
Australian office, and the persons reponsible are long gone.

Somewhat disingenuous perhaps?

Patricia J. Erwin aka "Pat"
Assistant Professor of Medical Education
Plummer Library - Mayo Clinic Libraries
Erwin.patricia@mayo.edu
507-284-4952


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Kosecki, Stan
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:31 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Merck published fake journal

Wednesday's US edition (May 6, 2009) of Financial Times has a 
story on this topic. --Stan Kosecki

"Elsevier admits journal error" By Salamander Davoudi and Andrew 
Jack in London Published: May 5 2009 22:42 | Last updated: May 5 
2009 22:42 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bab0fcf4-39a2-11de-b82d-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Hamaker, Charles
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 10:54 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Merck published fake journal

The drug company paid Elsevier to produce several volumes of a
publication made to look like a peer-reviewed medical journal, with no
disclosure of company sponsorship

By Bob Grant [30th April 2009]

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55671/

(requires registration)

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.

[SNIP]

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.

[SNIP]

The claim that Merck had created a journal out of whole cloth to
serve as a marketing tool was first reported by The Australian
<http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25311725-5013871,00.
html>

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).

[SNIP]

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.

Chuck Hamaker