PDA

View Full Version : Merck creates phony peer reviewed journal



brittone2
05-05-2009, 06:09 PM
as reported by the AMA's online medical ethics site:

http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/

elephantmeg
05-05-2009, 07:41 PM
yikes! that's horrible!

srhs
05-05-2009, 07:46 PM
:shake:
Unbelievable!

kijip
05-05-2009, 07:52 PM
Doesn't this totally and completely shatter Elsevier's creditibilty? They put their name and reputation up for sale when they took money from Merck. Obviously, Merck's hands are not clean here but what was Elsevier thinking when they agreed to this? Sure they get the money but I wonder how much damage this will do to their reputation as a publisher.

LBW
05-05-2009, 08:10 PM
The members of the "editorial" board should be ashamed of themselves.

It seems like this was basically a reprint publication. I wonder if there was some sort of disclosure printed in the journal itself.

MontrealMum
05-05-2009, 11:02 PM
Really, really not good :(

As an interesting side note, I am presently doing contract research on the subject of national web archiving programs. Elsevier (which is Dutch, and responsible for something like 80% of scientific publications) has an agreement with KB e-depot (the Dutch national web archiving program) to freely deposit copies of all their publications with that service. This was truly a landmark agreement that the Dutch were able to negotiate with a for-profit corporation and a model for many web archiving initiatives - especially since the Netherlands lacks any specific copyright/deposit legislation which would require this sort of deposit like other countries have. I wonder if this phony journal not available anywhere else made it there or not? I would assume so, as the agreement is for total deposit - you'd think there'd be a paper trail on that somewhere.

Ah, just looked, the digital library is not available right now due to maintenance.

KpbS
05-05-2009, 11:08 PM
Creepy. Wow--a new low. :(

DrSally
05-05-2009, 11:08 PM
Crazy!......

mommyp
05-05-2009, 11:14 PM
Bad, bad, bad....Molly, I will be interested to see if it is in the web archive once the maintenance is finished. Elsevier will certainly lose credibility, they publish so many journals though, I'm not sure how it will play out.

MontrealMum
05-05-2009, 11:22 PM
Yes, it has piqued my interest mostly because I am in info. studies and I am currently doing research on this very subject. Sites are often down for routine maintenance, especially something large like that, so I'm not reading anything into it. But it is a coincidence. I expect the news about the deception will run through a lot of academic sources in the next few weeks.

ThreeofUs
05-06-2009, 12:59 AM
O. M. G. I can't believe they'd be so deceptive! Silly me.

hez
05-06-2009, 07:35 AM
brittone2, do you have a link to the AMA site where this is reported? The blog you link to doesn't seem to be an AMA-affiliated site, but it has a link at the top to the "Virtual Mentor." The "Virtual Mentor" is an AMA site, but I can't find any reference to this story there when I search. Occasionally I'm search-impaired-- that's why I'm asking. Thanks!

JTsMom
05-06-2009, 08:24 AM
:shake: Nothing surprises me anymore.

Ceepa
05-06-2009, 08:44 AM
Thanks for posting this; it's a good reminder to take everything you read, including "scientific studies" and "reports" with a grain of salt. Don't create a life around the "findings" because many times the sources are suspect or else the conclusions are skewed. That's why a lot of citations and endless hyperlinks thrown around (even on this board) make me roll my eyes a bit.

mudder17
05-06-2009, 08:54 AM
Thanks for posting this; it's a good reminder to take everything you read, including "scientific studies" and "reports" with a grain of salt. Don't create a life around the "findings" because many times the sources are suspect or else the conclusions are skewed. That's why a lot of citations and endless hyperlinks thrown around (even on this board) make me roll my eyes a bit.

But it should be a reminder that even this report could be skewed or made up. Just saying that whether it's Merck reporting something or some blog reporting that Merck created a phony peer reviewed journal, it's always good to verify the veracity of the report.

And note, it does not mean that this blog is wrong--it just means you should always check sources before you jump in, kwim? And FTR, I haven't checked out this blog, but I'm not jumping in on either side either.

Corie
05-06-2009, 08:56 AM
But it should be a reminder that even this report could be skewed or made up. Just saying that whether it's Merck reporting something or some blog reporting that Merck created a phony peer reviewed journal, it's always good to verify the veracity of the report.


Yes, exactly!! Good point Eileen.

dawell0
05-06-2009, 09:06 AM
I agree with Eileen as well. I have worked in the pharmaceutical research field and I know that there is a lot of disdain towards it. Until I can find more proof, I'm not going to make any judgments.

Ceepa
05-06-2009, 09:09 AM
But it should be a reminder that even this report could be skewed or made up. Just saying that whether it's Merck reporting something or some blog reporting that Merck created a phony peer reviewed journal, it's always good to verify the veracity of the report.

And note, it does not mean that this blog is wrong--it just means you should always check sources before you jump in, kwim? And FTR, I haven't checked out this blog, but I'm not jumping in on either side either.

Absolutely, Eileen. Good points. I just take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. :D

mudder17
05-06-2009, 09:19 AM
Absolutely, Eileen. Good points. I just take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. :D

Good policy! :thumbsup:

gatorsmom
05-06-2009, 09:57 AM
If this is true, it seems that big pharma are getting more and more brazen, doesn't it? Makes me wonder what we'll be shaking our heads about next.

elliput
05-06-2009, 10:45 AM
Call me a bit skeptical, but the blog which you link to is not AMA sponsored. It is sponsored by the The American Journal of Bioethics http://www.bioethics.net . On various information pages for bioethics.net there is a banner link at the top of which invites one to visit the Virtual Mentor, AMA's online ethics journal (http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/) this seems pretty devious on the part of AJOB by making it appear the AMA is supporting their site.

Here is a link to the "What is this" from the blog http://blog.bioethics.net/2004/09/what-is-this/

kijip
05-06-2009, 11:09 AM
If you log into the Scientist news website, the article the blog references is there, written by a staff writer on 4/30. Like the NYT, you have to have a log in to access most of the content of The Scientist. The Scientist is a legit publication. Not stating it is 100% accurate news but it is there and quotes it's sources, including apparently getting ahold of two copies of this "journal" from 2003 with links to scanned PDFs of these two copies.

The AMA just has a banner ad on the blog, this is not an AMA report...the blog never said that it was AMA sponsored...it said it's point of reference was The Scientist. Beth must have mistaken the banner ad for a header. Honest mistake, IMO.

MontrealMum
05-06-2009, 11:11 AM
Well, I've done a bit of poking and really haven't found much more than similar original stories like in the OP. Lots of blogs talking about it...no "news" or academic sources. Apparently, the story grew out of a lawsuit in Australia in 2008, so I might expect to see a local newspaper story or something, but have yet to find one. One ".edu" domain (so, generally more credible) http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/05/elsevier-and-merck-published-fake.html however, it's also a pro-open access blog even though it is .edu, so should also be taken w/ a grain of salt since the open access vs. paid publication movement is VERY contentious right now.

I am unable to access Medline or Dialog from home (this would need to be done by a reference librarian on campus) so I can't say if it's in the major databases or not; it is in WorldCat and only seems to be held by a library in New South Wales, dates between 2002-2005. It's not in the KB or Elsevier site as a journal choice - which is what the article implies, and why it's suspect.

I don't know what to say. The concept is very disturbing - and I guess as pp have said, it just underlines why we should all take all news stories with a grain of salt. If there is more to the story and you're interested in following it, I'd check in the library and information science journals or legal journals, not just with the AMA. Although the concept of skewed medical information is very concerning, I'd expect those communities to be much more quickly and verbally up in arms since trusted sources are a huge issue right now, as well as open access and cutting library costs.

ETA: Forgot to add, The Scientist is a legit journal.

brittone2
05-06-2009, 11:12 AM
In my haste to get this up last night before bed, I mistakenly said AAP, but I can't find it on their site. Mea culpa on that one. I did register (free if you are interested) to read The Scientist piece, which I recommend if you want to get the info in full context. It appears that the publications were from 2003-2004. The info was first reported by an Australian publication, The Australian, a few weeks ago as part of their reporting on a civil case stemming from a man who suffered a heart attack believed to be caused by his taking Vioxx.

From The Scientist piece:

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.
(emphasis mine there)

============================================

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.
============================================

In combination with the reports about "medical ghostwriting", it doesn't paint a rosy picture, IMO.

From the NYT regarding Wyeth:
The documents show company executives came up with ideas for medical journal articles, titled them, drafted outlines, paid writers to draft the manuscripts, recruited academic authors and identified publications to run the articles — all without disclosing the companies’ roles to journal editors or readers.
link to entire text below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/business/13wyeth.html?ref=business

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/15/1800

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a5z.VogSbbXo&refer=home

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/31/health/main327012.shtml

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/12/12/grassley-probes-medical-ghostwriting-by-wyeth/

eta: I would like to see more confirmation. I apologize for jumping on that one before checking it out more thoroughly...I usually am more careful. However, when I think about the medical ghostwriting issue, it seems quite probable that this may have some legitimacy.

infomama
05-06-2009, 11:22 AM
Shame on them.

brittone2
05-06-2009, 11:31 AM
It is also on the BMJ site, but you can only access the first portion without being a subscriber

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/338/apr28_1/b1714

UK Yahoo Business:
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/05052009/399/elsevier-admits-journal-error.html

eta: fresh questions emerge about Merck ghostwriting w/ respect to Vioxx:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/702236

elliput
05-06-2009, 11:39 AM
Beth must have mistaken the banner ad for a header. Honest mistake, IMO.

I agree that this is probably what happened, however, can not we say the same for Elsevier and their reprint of articles from other journals? It is very possible that who ever was assembling The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine did not see a disclaimer that the articles were adverts. Honest mistake, no?

kijip
05-06-2009, 11:56 AM
I agree that this is probably what happened, however, can not we say the same for Elsevier and their reprint of articles from other journals? It is very possible that who ever was assembling The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine did not see a disclaimer that the articles were adverts. Honest mistake, no?

From The Scientist:


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.



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.


If they were being paid by Merck to publish what was held out as a legit peer reviewed journal, then they flat out should have insisted that it either not use their name/carry their weight (ie essentially just renting their printing presses) or that it carry bold disclaimers throughout that it was funded entirely by Merck, like the pharma ads and pullouts in other publications. Merck could have printed this on their own, but to make it more creditable and valid they sought out and used Elsevier's prestige. Elsevier can't claim "honest mistake" when being paid by Merck for the service and not marking the journal itself as the advertising it was. They are big enough to avoid a lot of damage from this but it is troubling that they would have ever thought being paid by Merck was a wise choice. I don't see the similarity between a banner ad taken out by one group to be placed throughout another group's website AND a pharma company paying the leading publisher of journals to print up a journal for them. In the first situation, the taker of the ad knows that their clickable banner will be shown in many places on the website they are paying to place the ad on and most people, being familiar with online banner advertising would see it as the ad it is (I know I did, I did not think I was reading an AMA site when I looked at the blog because I saw the web address). In the second situation, the group being paid for the ad agrees to put it out there like it is not an ad at all, with inadequate notation that it was industry generated. The average reader would not know what they were looking at on first or even second glance and they would see Elsevier and think it was legit.

brittone2
05-06-2009, 12:05 PM
THe kids and I are headed out to lunch, but I did want to say, yes, in my quick haste I did see the banner and mistook it (and again I'm usually more careful, I am not generally one running around citing blogs as sources) for an AMA site. I was rushing and getting kids to bed. However, before posting, I did read the piece in The Scientist, which I perceive to be legit. That is when I posted.

I am highly skeptical that what happend with Elsevier was a mere oversight. IMO, particularly when you couple it with the reports of medical ghostwriting, it seems like an effort to intentionally deceive.

MontrealMum
05-06-2009, 12:13 PM
I guess we'll have to see how this plays out, and this statement is not making a judgment about wrong or right, but I am somewhat comforted by the fact that it is near to impossible to find this publication in an academic or medical library or other source that doctors might use to keep up with literature, like Medline or other databases. If the medical librarians (who prepare lit reviews and gather pertinent articles for MDs) don't have access to it, then fewer Docs are likely to make the mistake that the one did in Australia. Still not good that sponsored vs. peer-reviewed not sponsored was not clear, but perhaps the effects are not that wideranging.

kijip
05-06-2009, 12:17 PM
I am somewhat comforted by the fact that it is near to impossible to find this publication in an academic or medical library or other source that doctors might use to keep up with literature, like Medline or other databases. If the medical librarians (who prepare lit reviews and gather pertinent articles for MDs) don't have access to it, then fewer Docs are likely to make the mistake that the one did in Australia. Still not good that sponsored vs. peer-reviewed not sponsored was not clear, but perhaps the effects are not that wideranging.

Very good point, thanks for your professional insights. :)

anamika
05-06-2009, 12:50 PM
I also found it on Financial Times.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bab0fcf4-39a2-11de-b82d-00144feabdc0.html

Excerpt:
However, the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, produced in several issues between 2003 and 2005, has no website and is not listed as a journal in standard depositories of academic literature such as the Medline database.


This is relevant since almost everyone looks at Pubmed or journal websites to access data.

elliput
05-06-2009, 12:53 PM
I am highly skeptical that what happend with Elsevier was a mere oversight. IMO, particularly when you couple it with the reports of medical ghostwriting, it seems like an effort to intentionally deceive.

Elsevier and Merck, as we know, are both for-profit companies. While I am not quite ready to say this was an intentional effort to deceive, I will say it was an intentional effort to make money. Sometimes the two go hand-in-hand, sometimes not.

Thank you for your honesty, Beth. :love2: