HUGHLY unethical behavior by pharmaceutical companies and an academic publishing company

[wiegie]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/05/07/ap6394349.html

Elsevier unit failed to disclose journal sponsors

Associated Press, 05.07.09, 04:08 PM EDT

 

Elsevier, the publisher of some of the top medical journals in the world, said Thursday an Australian unit contracted with drugmakers to publish what appeared to be medical journals that didn't disclose who had paid for them.

 

Those publications included one titled The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which heavily favored Merck & Co.'s osteoporosis drug Fosamax and the painkiller Vioxx. The journal was in fact sponsored by drugmaker Merck, though the Elsevier unit never properly disclosed the sponsorship.

 

Elsevier publishes medical and scientific journals, including the Lancet. It also contracts with drugmakers to print compilations of medical articles on their drugs, but the sponsor of the compilation is supposed to be clearly spelled out.

 

Elsevier Chief Executive Michael Hansen, in a statement, said between 2000 and 2005, the company's Australia office published a series of sponsored articles that were made to look like journals and lacked proper disclosure.

 

"This was an unacceptable practice and we regret that it took place," he said.

 

In all, the company has acknowledged six publications between the years in question, that were paid for by pharmaceutical companies, making them no more than elaborate marketing tools.

 

Merck said the Australasian Journal published twice a year, from 2002 to 2005. Beginning with the fifth issue, Elsevier started including a disclaimer, spelling out that the content was primarily made of company-sponsored articles. It is Merck's policy to disclose when an article or study is sponsored by the company.

 

"Merck agrees with Elsevier about the importance of appropriate disclosure of financial support, and we remain committed to providing journals with the information that permits such disclosures to be made," Merck said in a statement.

 

Elsevier would not say which other drugmakers paid for similar journals.

 

Elsevier said it is conducting an internal review but believes the issue was isolated to the Australian unit.

 

"The individuals involved in the project have long since left the company," Hansen said. "I have affirmed our business practices as they relate to what defines a journal and the proper use of disclosure language with our employees to ensure this does not happen again."

This is really utterly shocking.

 

(Elsevier also publishes a very large nuber of economics journals too--in fact, I have a research paper coming out in one of them in the next few months. I will state up-front that I did not pay Elsevier to publish my research.)

[wiegie]

link explaining the problems with the whole situation:

 

http://laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com/2009/05...evier-journals/

[Perchoutofwater]

That is pretty disgusting.

[The Irish Doggy]

Not at all surprising. Once again, a corporation exists to make profits. The public's health is far down the list of priorities.

[Perchoutofwater]

How is this really any different than an economics professor that is paid at least in part by the federal government writing a paper in support of said governments policies?

[wiegie]

How is this really any different than an economics professor that is paid at least in part by the federal government writing a paper in support of said governments policies?

lame

 

The primary difference would be is that if the paper is a hack-job, then it won't get published by a journal (at least not a decent one).

 

In order to make the connection that you are trying to make, you would need to have the government secretly set up and fund an "independent" journal that only published articles that were pro-federal government.

[wiegie]

Not at all surprising. Once again, a corporation exists to make profits. The public's health is far down the list of priorities.

Merck doing this doesn't surprise me too terribly much--but Elsevier doing it is shocking to me. (Their whole business is based upon their reputation and I can imagine a big fall-out as a result of this among scientists.)