Elsevier Caught Again: Published Ghost Written, Industry Supporting Articles As Scientific Resesarch
from the credibility? dept
Earlier this year, it was revealed that publishing giant Elsevier had allowed pharma king Merck to create a fake peer reviewed journal that hyped up certain Merck products, such that doctors would think that there was some serious science behind them. It later came out that Elsevier actually had a whole division which specialized in publishing such fake journals, made to appear real, and given the Elsevier stamp of approval (which hopefully is now becoming worthless). But, it appears things keep getting worse. Coral Hess notes yet another scandal, once again involving Elsevier's (now) fake stamp of approval. This time, it involved people hired by certain pharma companies ghostwriting scientific "review" articles that were supposed to give an overview of all the research on certain treatments, but... "emphasized the benefits and de-emphasized the risks" of those treatments. And people wonder why we're so skeptical about allowing pharma companies to dictate both our healthcare plans and our patent laws...Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ghostwriting, marketing, scientific research
Companies: elsevier
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonder why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Support health care reform?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christ
Mike points at a big pile of steamy, corny shit and says, "Look at that pile of shit! Can you believe how bad it stinks?"
Then everyone fights over exactly how bad the pile of shit stinks. Some people talk about how it costs a lot of money to MAKE the steamy pile of shit. Others talk about how there are fake polystyrene piles of joke shit out there being sold on the black market, and that those piles of shit don't stink the right way.
Meanwhile I'm shaking my head and pinching my nose, because all debates aside, the current pharma industry is making billions while we debate exactly what kind of big, steamy pile of shit it is....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Christ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the real issue???
Free speach, remember all that preaching you do???? They can say anything they want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the real issue???
Are you missing the point here, sparky? Mike can spit all the "garbage" he wants. Why? Because it comes from him and he says so. This is a pharma REVIEW JOURNAL, a mainstay of our current healthcare system, essentially allowing pharma firms to write their own reviews. I mean, I know you're a shill, but at least try to make a point that isn't so ridiculous that it's immediatly dismissed. C'mon, I want a challenge.
"Free speach, remember all that preaching you do???? They can say anything they want."
I put in a period for you, since you're clearly on yours.
In any case, this is an opinion site by a guy, so free speech is applicable. Elsevier is a review journal of the pharma industry that is in charge of honestly evaluating drugs for peer review, which is used in the validation process, so....no. They're big industry liars. Paid shills to push through drug approvals. Go read up on Searl and Donald Rumsfeld w/regard to aspartame.
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the real issue???
What they did may be lacking in morals, but it is far from illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's the real issue???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's the real issue???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's the real issue???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reviews aren't "opinions," in the sense you seem to mean
And practicing doctors read them, because doctors do not have time to read every piece of literature on every drug that's out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right..except there are clearly objective reviews, which clearly only review the data, and non-objective reviews.
The non-objective reviews are essentially commercials.
Even if the data is the same, or presented with the same authority as a normal journal (which it can't be, because there is no objectivity), it's presented in a commercial format. Most intelliegent people can tell the difference.
Trolls may be an exception, and it seems so in this case.
What they did may be lacking in morals, but it is far from illegal..
Oh so they're only morally lacking. Well in that case, I'm sure to want to get my drug review from that journal, as opposed to research presented by someone who will "do no harm". "No morals, can't be trusted" or "do no harm". Such a hard choice to make...NOT.
@Michial Thompson: If you're going to troll, at least try and make your arguments seem logical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elsevier? Or Wyeth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Elsevier? Or Wyeth?
One said "all," the other said "some" and only named Elsevier (who publishes a majority of the medical journals in the world.)
But to answer your question, Elsevier is getting the blame because they got caught doing almost the same thing just three months ago with pain relief medicines. Fool me once...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When the Grant-Funding Agencies Take Over.
Elsevier, on the other hand, is essentially an academic vanity press. It is based on the premise that the author pays, either directly, or indirectly, by exerting pressure to get his library to buy journals. The pharmaceutical company scandals are simply the tip of the iceberg. There will be another scandal, and another scandal after that.
Every scandal will increase the pressure for the funding agencies to set up their own publication systems, simply to disassociate themselves from the mess, and with every funding agency which takes the plunge, Elsevier will be driven deeper into the swamp of vanity publication. The rate of scandals will increase, in a positive feedback loop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When the Grant-Funding Agencies Take Over.
The NIH has been guilty of putting out medical "studies" rife with recall bias and small sample numbers, or the use of rats, all in an effort to correlate health benefits or minimize health risks for big pharma.
Then, thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act, they can fund public studies that result in private industry patents, which are then used to charge the public exhorbent rates for the drugs THEY funded the research on.
The NIH is a joke. Just another corruted beauracracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those fake «journals» are the bane of the profession,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]