September 27, 2007
Drug Industry Said to Exert Vast Power Over Research by Ghost-Managing Articles
Drug companies play a far bigger role than previously suspected in managing how academics publish articles in medical journals, charges Sergio Sismondo, an associate professor of philosophy and sociology at Queen’s University in Canada. In an essay this week in PLoS Medicine, published by the Public Library of Science, Mr. Sismondo says that “a substantial percentage of medical-journal articles (in addition to meeting presentations and other forms of publication …) are ghost-managed, allowing the pharmaceutical industry considerable influence on medical research.”
Mr. Sismondo bases his case on an examination of internal company documents revealed in a lawsuit and also on his research into so-called medical education and communication companies. Those businesses help pharmaceutical companies promote their products by preparing academic articles and then recruiting university scientists to put their names on the manuscripts, says Mr. Sismondo. “Ghost management of medical-journal publications is clearly a substantial business, employing thousands of marketers, writers, and managers,” he says.
It will take teamwork from journal editors, academic administrators, and scientists to solve the problem, he says. Editors could refuse to deal with third-party publication planners and insist that the listed authors specify the exact roles they played in preparing articles. Universities should not sign contracts that give the sponsors of research projects the authority to write or edit articles. And administrators should punish scientists who sign their names to articles written by others. Investigators, he says, should refuse to participate in projects where a company secretly writes the academic paper.
Scientists, he says, must be “more modest about how many articles they can publish, and more realistic about the amount of effort, legwork, and/or creativity it takes to publish an article.” —Richard Monastersky
Posted on Thursday September 27, 2007 | Permalink |
1 comment:
I am conflicted about this article, and I also have concerns about the codes of ethics (ICMJE, etc.) that require authors of articles to have participated in the research.
Not all scientists are good writers, and there are many good science/medical writers who would be well-placed to help write those articles but who do not do original research.
Why isn't there another way to address these ethical issues than requiring that the writers had to have participated in the research? These requirements don't make sense to me as an ethical issue.
(Oh man, I am almost afraid to post this opinion. I'm afraid that I'm in the minority when I think writers should write and researchers shouldn't be required to write.)
Post a Comment