RE: Elsevier admits error

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

Of course Phil is correct, but it is not Merck that is lobbying 
Congress about the role of publishers in upholding scholarly 
standards and the need to support the traditional publishing 
industry to maintain peer review.  The publisher as "Keeper of 
Civilization" has always seemed a bit pompous to me, but 
especially when the most basic tenets of the editorial enterprise 
are being violated.

Joe Esposito

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Phil Davis
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:00 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Elsevier admits error

Not to defend Elsevier, but Merck shares some of the responsibility for
ethical breaches in publishing.  Exposed during the Vioxx litigation,
documents report that Merck engaged in preparing manuscripts and recruiting
outside academically-affiliated researchers to become the authors of these
articles.  The connection with Merck and the honoraria they pay to these
"authors" somehow gets left of the manuscripts as well.

see:

Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting in Publications Related to Rofecoxib JAMA.
2008;299(15):1800-1812.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/15/1800

from the abstract:

"For the publication of clinical trials, documents were found describing
Merck employees working either independently or in collaboration with
medical publishing companies to prepare manuscripts and subsequently
recruiting external, academically affiliated investigators to be authors.
Recruited authors were frequently placed in the first and second positions
of the authorship list. For the publication of scientific review papers,
documents were found describing Merck marketing employees developing plans
for manuscripts, contracting with medical publishing companies to ghostwrite
manuscripts, and recruiting external, academically affiliated investigators
to be authors.
Recruited authors were commonly the sole author on the manuscript and
offered honoraria for their participation. Among 96 relevant published
articles, we found that 92% (22 of 24) of clinical trial articles published
a disclosure of Merck's financial support, but only 50% (36 of 72) of review
articles published either a disclosure of Merck sponsorship or a disclosure
of whether the author had received any financial compensation from the
company."

--Phil Davis


Joseph Esposito wrote:

> The Financial Times reports that Elsevier has admitted an error in its
> publication of material covertly sponsored by Merck:
>
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4a698ce-39d7-11de-b82d-00144feabdc0.html?nc
> lick_check=1
>
> I wish Elsevier had not used the occasion as an opportunity to trumpet
> their "usual high standards."  Couldn't they find a head of corporate
> communications who said, "We made a mistake.  We are embarrassed.  It
> will not happen again."
>
> Joe Esposito