RE: Merck published fake journal

["Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

I know nothing of this situation beyond Chuck's summary, but if 
that summary is accurate and left out no mitigating details, it 
is difficult not to be disturbed by this news.  What publishers 
of the old-fashioned variety (meaning enterprises that are built 
on editorial selection) have going for them is their credibility. 
This is what distinguishes them from many of the evolving 
community and peer-to-peer efforts (e.g., Wikipedia). There are 
business opportunities that must be passed up if they could 
undermine the credibility of the brand.  Not to disclose 
sponsorship in the current climate is poor judgment.

Joe Esposito

-----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 7:54 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