The haunting of medical journals: how ghostwriting sold "HRT".
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fugh-Berman AJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2935455 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The haunting of medical journals: how ghostwriting sold "HRT".
PLoS medicine 20100907 9
Adriane Fugh-Berman examines documents unsealed in recent litigation to investigate how pharmaceutical companies promoted hormone therapy drugs, including the use of medical writing companies to produce ghostwritten manuscripts and place them into medical journals. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC2814828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background to the debateGhostwriting occurs when someone makes substantial contributions to a manuscript without attribution or disclosure. It is considered bad publication practice in the medical sciences, and some argue it is scientific misconduct. At its extreme, medical ghostwriting involves pharmaceutical companies hiring professional writers to produce papers promoting their products but hiding those contributions and instead naming academic physicians or scientists as the authors. To improve transparency, many editors' associations and journals allow professional medical writers to contribute to the writing of papers without being listed as authors provided their role is acknowledged. This debate examines how best to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature from the perspectives of a researcher, an editor, and the professional medical writer.
| S-EPMC2634793 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Because they do not rank highly in the hierarchy of evidence and are not frequently cited, case reports describing the clinical circumstances of single patients are seldom published by medical journals. However, many clinicians argue that case reports have significant educational value, advance medical knowledge, and complement evidence-based medicine. Over the last several years, a vast number (∼160) of new peer-reviewed journals have emerged that focus on publishing case reports. These journals are typically open access and have relatively high acceptance rates. However, approximately half of the publishers of case reports journals engage in questionable or "predatory" publishing practices. Authors of case reports may benefit from greater awareness of these new publication venues as well as an ability to discriminate between reputable and non-reputable journal publishers.
| S-EPMC4816468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGhostwriting of industry-sponsored articles is unethical and is perceived to be common practice.ObjectiveTo systematically review how evidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting is reported in the medical literature.Data sourcesMEDLINE via PubMed 1966+, EMBASE 1966+, The Cochrane Library 1988+, Medical Writing 1998+, The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) Journal 1986+, Council of Science Editors Annual Meetings 2007+, and the Peer Review Congress 1994+ were searched electronically (23 May 2013) using the search terms ghostwrit*, ghostauthor*, ghost AND writ*, ghost AND author*.Eligibility criteriaAll publication types were considered; only publications reporting a numerical estimate of possible ghostwriting prevalence were included.Data extractionTwo independent reviewers screened the publications; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Data to be collected included a numerical estimate of the prevalence of possible ghostwriting (primary outcome measure), definitions of ghostwriting reported, source of the reported prevalence, publication type and year, study design and sample population.ResultsOf the 848 publications retrieved and screened for eligibility, 48 reported numerical estimates for the prevalence of possible ghostwriting. Sixteen primary publications reported findings from cross-sectional surveys or descriptive analyses of published articles; 32 secondary publications cited published or unpublished evidence. Estimates on the prevalence of possible ghostwriting in primary and secondary publications varied markedly. Primary estimates were not suitable for meta-analysis because of the various definitions of ghostwriting used, study designs and types of populations or samples. Secondary estimates were not always reported or cited correctly or appropriately.ConclusionsEvidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature is limited and can be outdated, misleading or mistaken. Researchers should not inflate estimates using non-standard definitions of ghostwriting nor conflate ghostwriting with other unethical authorship practices. Editors and peer reviewers should not accept articles that incorrectly cite or interpret primary publications that report the prevalence of ghostwriting.
| S-EPMC4120312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe post marketing safety surveillance program for a drug containing a new chemical entity should assess both, the safety outcomes that relate specifically to the targeted population, as well as those that could potentially be related to special pharmacological characteristics of the drug. Active safety surveillance using valid epidemiological study designs has been proven to be a pertinent and reliable method to approach this endeavor.Methods/designThe primary objective of the study is to compare incidence rates of serious adverse events in users of all types of newly prescribed oral HRT products. This active surveillance study will assess pertinent cardiovascular outcomes--in particular venous and arterial thromboembolism--and other serious adverse events (SAEs) in new HRT users over a period of several years. One product under surveillance is Angeliq, which contains the novel progestagen drospirenone (DRSP) combined with estradiol. In addition, all other oral combined HRT products with a novel progestagen or estrogen that will be newly marketed during the study period will be studied. These new HRT products will be compared with established HRT products. The combined cohort will include at least 30,000 women recruited in several European countries. At least 90,000 years of observation are expected from the field work which started in early 2002 and will end around 2008. The participating women will complete a baseline survey using a self-administered questionnaire to describe the baseline risk. After 6 months, 12 months, and then on an annual basis, they will fill out a questionnaire in which they record complaints and events during the use of the prescribed HRTs. All adverse outcomes occurring during the observational period will be evaluated.DiscussionA complete lifetime medical history, individually validated SAEs over time, and a low loss to follow-up rate are essential for a robust safety assessment. Therefore, the lifetime history of diseases and relevant medications will be documented. Reported SAEs will be validated and analyzed. A four level, multi-faceted follow-up process was established to ensure low loss to follow-up rates (e.g., 3-5% after three years of follow up). Multivariate methods will be used to adjust for confounding.
| S-EPMC1351171 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlmost all medical journals now require authors to publicly disclose conflicts of interests (COI). The same standard and scrutiny is rarely employed for the editors of the journals although COI may affect editorial decisions.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study to determine the prevalence and magnitude of financial relationships among editors of 60 influential US medical journals (10 each for internal medicine and five subspecialties: cardiology, gastroenterology, neurology, dermatology and allergy & immunology). Open Payments database was reviewed to determine the percentage of physician editors receiving payments and the nature and amount of these payments.Findings703 unique physician editors were included in our analysis. 320/703 (46%) received 8659 general payments totaling $8,120,562. The median number of payments per editor was 9 (IQR 3-26) and the median amount per payment was $91 (IQR $21-441). The median total payment received by each editor in one year was $4,364 (IQR $319-23,143). 152 (48%) editors received payments more than $5,000 in a year, a threshold considered significant by the National Institutes of Health. COI policies for editors were available for 34/60 (57%) journals but only 7/34 (21%) publicly reported the disclosures and only 2 (3.%) reported the dollar amount received.InterpretationA significant number of editors of internal medicine and subspecialty medical journals have financial COI and very few are publicly disclosed. Specialty journal editors have more COI compared to general medicine journal editors. Current policies for disclosing COI for editors are inconsistent and do not comply with the recommended standards.
| S-EPMC5959187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Academic degrees following author names are often included in medical research papers. However, it remains unclear how many journals choose to include academic degrees and whether this is more common in certain types of journals. We examined the 100 highest impact medical journals and found that only 24 medical journals reported academic degrees. Moreover, this was substantially more common in journals based in North America compared with Europe. Further research is required to explore the implications of listing academic degrees on the readers' attitude towards research quality.
| S-EPMC7014575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine whether regional biomedical journals in Africa had policies on plagiarism and procedures to detect it; and to measure the extent of plagiarism in their original research articles and reviews.DesignCross sectional survey.Setting and participantsWe selected journals with an editor-in-chief in Africa, a publisher based in a low or middle income country and with author guidelines in English, and systematically searched the African Journals Online database. From each of the 100 journals identified, we randomly selected five original research articles or reviews published in 2016.OutcomesFor included journals, we examined the presence of plagiarism policies and whether they referred to text matching software. We submitted articles to Turnitin and measured the extent of plagiarism (copying of someone else's work) or redundancy (copying of one's own work) against a set of criteria we had developed and piloted.ResultsOf the 100 journals, 26 had a policy on plagiarism and 16 referred to text matching software. Of 495 articles, 313 (63%; 95% CI 58 to 68) had evidence of plagiarism: 17% (83) had at least four linked copied or more than six individual copied sentences; 19% (96) had three to six copied sentences; and the remainder had one or two copied sentences. Plagiarism was more common in the introduction and discussion, and uncommon in the results.ConclusionPlagiarism is common in biomedical research articles and reviews published in Africa. While wholesale plagiarism was uncommon, moderate text plagiarism was extensive. This could rapidly be eliminated if journal editors implemented screening strategies, including text matching software.
| S-EPMC6231593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWikipedia, the multilingual encyclopedia, was founded in 2001 and is the world's largest and most visited online general reference website. It is widely used by health care professionals and students. The inclusion of journal articles in Wikipedia is of scholarly interest, but the time taken for a journal article to be included in Wikipedia, from the moment of its publication to its incorporation into Wikipedia, is unclear.ObjectiveWe aimed to determine the ranking of the most cited journals by their representation in the English-language medical pages of Wikipedia. In addition, we evaluated the number of days between publication of journal articles and their citation in Wikipedia medical pages, treating this measure as a proxy for the information-diffusion rate.MethodsWe retrieved the dates when articles were included in Wikipedia and the date of journal publication from Crossref by using an application programming interface.ResultsFrom 11,325 Wikipedia medical articles, we identified citations to 137,889 journal articles from over 15,000 journals. There was a large spike in the number of journal articles published in or after 2002 that were cited by Wikipedia. The higher the importance of a Wikipedia article, the higher was the mean number of journal citations it contained (top article, 48.13 [SD 33.67]; lowest article, 6.44 [SD 9.33]). However, the importance of the Wikipedia article did not affect the speed of reference addition. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most cited journal by Wikipedia, followed by The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. The multidisciplinary journals Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences were among the top 10 journals with the highest Wikipedia medical article citations. For the top biomedical journal papers cited in Wikipedia's medical pages in 2016-2017, it took about 90 days (3 months) for the citation to be used in Wikipedia.ConclusionsWe found evidence of "recentism," which refers to preferential citation of recently published journal articles in Wikipedia. Traditional high-impact medical and multidisciplinary journals were extensively cited by Wikipedia, suggesting that Wikipedia medical articles have robust underpinnings. In keeping with the Wikipedia policy of citing reviews/secondary sources in preference to primary sources, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most referenced journal.
| S-EPMC6356187 | biostudies-literature