Merck published fake journal

["Hamaker, Charles" <cahamake@uncc.edu>]

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