[Marxism] Elsevier created fake peer-reviewed journal for Merck

Sun May 10 07:30:52 MDT 2009

I have not seem this Merck publication, but considerably doubt the 
implications of foul play,

The Merck Index, a publication of that company that I _am_ familiar with is 
a highly reputable publication, which is often the most highly regarded 
reference source for professionals looking for the latest information on 
chemicals, drugs and biological materials. on a par with "Martindale". 
published by the Pharmaceutical Society, which is the first reference source 
for clinical information on pharmaceuticals.

In a similar fashion the Geigy company, publishes Documenta Geigy, which is 
always my first reference book of Scientific Tables and information on 
microbiology, antibiotics and so forth - including a comprehensive coverage 
of statistical methods (and their perils, so often disregarded in so many 
scientific and governmental papers these days).

My copies of these books (now rather old) came to me gratis, unlike 
Martindale which cost me £159-£200 - and though, no doubt, their cost comes 
out of the advertising budget of those companies, their service to 
professionals looking quickly for reliable information is undoubted - and 
the information is clearly unbiased.   It is merely keeping the company 
names in high regard among professionals that is their aim - and any bias 
would rapidly be recognised by professionals and be damaging to the 
companies' reputations.

Paddy
http://apling.freeservers.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com>
To: <e.c.apling at btinternet.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 9:57 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Elsevier created fake peer-reviewed journal for Merck

> [Since this article is available only behind a subscription firewall that
> demands all sorts of personal information and includes -- way at the 
> bottom,
> after a ton of questions, where it might easily be missed -- "permission" 
> to
> be spammed with the answer pre-set to "yes" and not only from this
> publication, but third parties, I am taking the liberty of reprinting here
> in toto to spare comrades having to register with this outfit.]
>
> The original is here:
>
> <http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/blog.jsp?type=blog
> &o_url=blog/display/55671&id=55671>
>
> Merck published fake journal
> Posted by Bob Grant
> [Entry posted at 30th April 2009 04:27 PM GMT]
> View comments(24) | Comment on this news story
>
> 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.
>
> "I've seen no shortage of creativity emanating from the marketing
> departments of drug companies," Peter Lurie, deputy director of the public
> health research group at the consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen,
> said, after reviewing two issues of the publication obtained by The
> Scientist. "But even for someone as jaded as me, this is a new wrinkle."
>
> 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. (Click here and here to view PDFs of the two issues.)
>
> The claim that Merck had created a journal out of whole cloth to serve as 
> a
> marketing tool was first reported by The Australian 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).
>
> In testimony provided at the trial last week, which was obtained by The
> Scientist, George Jelinek, an Australian physician and long-time member of
> the World Association of Medical Editors, reviewed four issues of the
> journal that were published from 2003-2004. An "average reader" 
> (presumably
> a doctor) could easily mistake the publication for a "genuine" peer 
> reviewed
> medical journal, he said in his testimony. "Only close inspection of the
> journals, along with knowledge of medical journals and publishing
> conventions, enabled me to determine that the Journal was not, in fact, a
> peer reviewed medical journal, but instead a marketing publication for
> MSD[A]."
>
> He also stated that four of the 21 articles featured in the first issue he
> reviewed referred to Fosamax. In the second issue, nine of the 29 articles
> related to Vioxx, and another 12 to Fosamax. All of these articles 
> presented
> positive conclusions regarding the MSDA drugs. "I can understand why a
> pharmaceutical company would collect a number of research papers with
> results favourable to their products and make these available to doctors,"
> Jelinek said at the trial. "This is straightforward marketing."
>
> Jelinek also pointed out several "review" articles that only cited one or
> two references. He described one of these articles as "simply a summary of
> an already published article," and noted that they were authored by "B&J
> Editorial."
>
> "It appears that 'B&J' (presumably Bone and Joint) refers to the Journal,
> and B&J editorial presumably to the publishers or owners as there is no
> editor of the journal," Jelinek said in his testimony. "This is a subtle
> attribution, and many readers may not realise that the paper was written 
> by
> the owners or publishers of the journal, presuming that is who would write
> under the heading of 'editorial'."
>
> Lurie, in examining two of the issues for The Scientist, agreed that one
> particularly strange element of the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint
> Medicine is that it contains "review" articles that cite just one or two
> references. "I've never seen anything quite like this," he said. "Reviews
> are usually swimming in references." For example, one article on
> osteoporosis labeled above the title as a "meta-analysis" cites two
> references -- one itself a meta-analysis. "To the jaundiced eye, [the
> journal] might be detected for what it is: marketing," he said. "Many
> doctors would fail to identify that and might be influenced by what they
> read."
>
> Lurie noted that the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine is 
> akin
> to other publishing strategies employed by drug companies; paying for
> supplements to existing journals or publishing compilations of original
> research articles that tend to lack scientific rigor (so-called
> "throwaways"). "It's kissing cousin to two other tricks that the [drug]
> companies pull."
>
> In response to several questions about the publication posed by The
> Scientist, an MSDA spokesperson wrote in an email: "MSDA understood that
> Elsevier envisaged the complimentary publication would draw on the vast
> resources of Elsevier, publishers of many leading peer-reviewed journals
> including Lancet, Bone, Joint Bone Spine and others, to deliver novel and
> timely full text articles and abstracts to physicians." Many of the 
> articles
> appearing in the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine were in
> fact reprints or summaries of studies that originally appeared in other
> Elsevier journals.
>
> A spokesperson for Elsevier, however, told The Scientist, "I wish there 
> was
> greater disclosure that it was a sponsored journal." Disclosure of Merck's
> funding of the journal was not mentioned anywhere in the copies of issues
> obtained by The Scientist.
>
> Elsevier acknowledged that Merck had sponsored the publication, but did 
> not
> disclose the amount the drug company paid. In a statement emailed to The
> Scientist, Elsevier said that the company "does not today consider a
> compilation of reprinted articles a 'Journal'."
>
> "Elsevier acknowledges the concern that the journals in question didn't 
> have
> the appropriate disclosures," the statement continued. "It is worth noting
> that project in question was produced 6 years ago and disclosure protocols
> have evolved since 2003. Elsevier's current disclosure policies meet the
> rigor and requirements of the current publishing environment."
>
> 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.
>
> One of the members of Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine's
> "Honorary Editorial Board," Peter Brooks, a rheumatologist in Australia,
> said he didn't recall who asked him to serve on the board, but noted that 
> he
> was on Merck's Asian Pacific and international advisory boards from the 
> mid
> 1990s until about 2004, as well as the advisory boards of other
> pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Amgen. "You get involved in 
> a
> whole bunch of things at this level," Brooks said, adding that he had put
> his name on "a few advertorials" for pharmaceutical companies about 10 
> years
> ago.
>
> As for the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, he said, "If 
> it
> would have been put to me that [the journal] was just sort of a throwaway,
> then I would have said 'no'" to serving on its editorial board. He said he
> was never paid for his role, adding that he "didn't ever get [manuscripts]
> to review or anything like that," while on the board, because the journal
> did not accept original manuscripts for review.
>
> "Having looked at one issue, it actually had some marketing studies," 
> Brooks
> said. "It also had papers that were excerpted from other peer-reviewed
> journals. I don't think it's fair to say it was totally a marketing
> journal."
>
> Editor's note (April 30): This story has been updated from a previous
> version.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/e.c.apling%40btinternet.com
> 