Publication ethics and the ghost management of medical publication

Bioethics

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 273-283

  Sismondo, Sergio ^a   Doucet, Mathieu ^a  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Ghost management; Publication ethics; Research ethics; Sponsorship bias

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DRUG INDUSTRY; ETHICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; MARKETING; MEDICAL ETHICS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; STATISTICS; WRITING; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

AUTHORSHIP; CODES OF ETHICS; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DRUG INDUSTRY; EDITORIAL POLICIES; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MARKETING; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PLAGIARISM; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; WRITING;

EID: 77955990707     PISSN: 02699702     EISSN: 14678519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.01702.x     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. M. Iverson et al. Scientific Societies and Research Integrity: What Are They Doing and How Well Are They Doing It? Sci Eng Ethics 2003; 9: 141-155;
2. N.H. Steneck. Fostering Integrity in Research: Definitions, Current Knowledge, and Future Directions. Sci Eng Ethics 2006; 12: 53-74.
3. J. Brice & J. Bligh. Author Misconduct: Not Just the Editors' Responsibility. Med Educ 2004; 39: 83-89;
4. A. Caelleigh. Roles for Scientific Societies in Promoting Integrity in Publication Ethics. Sci Eng Ethics 2003; 9: 221-241;
5. I. Chalmers. Role of Systematic Reviews in Detecting Plagiarism: Case of Asim Kurjak. Br Med J 2006; 333: 594-596;
6. R.B. Daroff & R.C. Giggs. Scientific Misconduct and Breaches of Publication Ethics. Neurology 2004; 62: 352-353;
7. M.J. Farthing. Authors and Publication Practices. Sci Eng Ethics 2006; 12: 41-52;
8. F.J. Gilbert & A.R. Denison. Research Misconduct. Clin Radiol 2003; 58: 499-504; Iverson et al., op. cit. note 1; A.V.
9. Neal et al. Correction and Use of the Biomedical Literature Affected by Scientific Misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics 2007: 13; Steneck, op. cit. note 1.
10. P. Borry et al. Author, Contributor or Just a Signer? A Quantitative Analysis of Authorship Trends in the Field of Bioethics. Bioethics 2006; 20: 213-220; Farthing, op. cit. note 2
11. A.H. Jones. Can Authorship Policies Help Prevent Scientific Misconduct? What Role for Scientific Societies. Sci Eng Ethics 2003; 9: 243-256;
12. M.T. Laflin et al. Publication Ethics: An Examination of Authorship Practices. Am J Health Behav 2005; 29;
13. A. Sheikh. Publication Ethics and the Research Assessment Exercise: Reflections on the Troubled Question of Authorship. J Med Ethics 2000; 26;
14. K.L. Woolley et al. Declaration of Medical Writing Assistance in International Peer-Reviewed Publications. JAMA 2006; 296: 932.
15. D. Rennie et al. When Authorship Fails: A Proposal to Make Contributors Accountable. JAMA 1997; 278: 579-585;
16. R. Smith. Reinventing the Biomedical Journal. J Neurosci 2006; 26: 9837-9838.
17. 2003. COPE. Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines on Good Publication Practice. Available at http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/guidelines [Accessed 23 June 2008]; ICMJE. 2006. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Available at, [Accessed 23 June 2008] http://www.icmje.org
18. Borry et al., op. cit. note 3; Brice & Bligh, op. cit. note 2; Gilbert & Denison, op. cit. note 2; Sheikh, op. cit. note 3.
19. Brice & Bligh, op. cit. note 2.
20. Caelleigh, op. cit. note 2; Iverson et al., op. cit. note 1.
21. COPE, for example, puts anonymized summaries of the cases it considers on its website. As of 2008, it listed 20 cases of disputes between authors, 20 of failure to obtain informed consent, and 18 of plagiarism. By contrast, only 4 cases were categorized as 'Drug Company' and 4 as 'Financial Interest,' and one of these was categorized as both, making for a total of only 7 cases. COPE. Cases. Available at, [Accessed 23 June, 2008] http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/cases .
22. In this section we summarize and amplify an earlier description by one of us of the 'ghost management' of medical research and publication. S. Sismondo. Ghost Management: How Much of the Medical Literature is Shaped Behind the Scenes by the Pharmaceutical Industry. PLoS Med 2007; 4: e286.
23. K. Applbaum. 2004. The Marketing Era: From Professional Practice to Global Provisioning. New York: Routledge.
24. H.E. Glass & D.W. Dalton. Profiles of Phase IV Investigators and Subsequent Prescribing of the Study Drug. J Pharm Mark and Manage 2006; 17: 3-17.
25. P.C. Gøtzsche et al. 000Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials. PLoS Med 2007; 4: 47-52;
26. B. Moffatt & C. Elliott. Ghost Marketing: Pharmaceutical Companies and Ghostwritten Journal Articles. Perspect Biol Med 2007; 50: 18-31.
27. T. Finucane & C. Bolt. Association of Funding and Findings of Pharmaceutical Research at a Meeting of a Medical Professional Society. JAMA 2004; 117: 842-845.
28. H. Melander et al. Evidence B(i)ased Medicine - Selective Reporting from Studies Sponsored by Pharmaceutical Industry: Review of Studies in New Drug Applications. Br Med J 2003; 326: 1171-1173.
29. A. Barnett. 2003. Revealed: How Drug Firms 'Hoodwink' Medical Journals. The Observer Dec. 7, 2003; P. Baty. 2005. When Access to Data is a Real Bone of Contention. Times Higher Education Supplement Nov. 25, 2005; D. Blumenthal et al. Withholding Research Results in Academic Life Science. Evidence from a National Survey of Faculty. J Am Med Assoc, 1997 ; 277: 1224-1228;
30. A. Fugh-Berman. The Corporate Coauthor. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20: 546-548; M. Gruzuk & C. Jones. 2003. CBC Marketplace: Inside the Business of Medical Ghostwriting. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Available at, [Accessed 6 Dec 2008] http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/ghostwriting/
31. M. Larkin. Whose Article Is It Anyway? The Lancet 1999; 354
32. A.W. Matthews. 2005. Ghost Story: At Medical Journals, Writers Paid by Industry Play Big Role; Articles Appear Under Name Of Academic Researchers, But They Often Get Help; J&J Receives a Positive 'Spin'. Wall St J December 13; S. Ngai et al. Haunted Manuscripts: Ghost Authorship in the Medical Literature. Account Res 2005; 12: 103-114
33. M. Peterson. 2002. Madison Ave. Has Growing Role In the Business of Drug Research. New York Times Nov 22.
34. C. Elliott. The Drug Pushers. The Atlantic Monthly April 2006: 82-93.
35. M.A. Steinman et al. Narrative Review: The Promotion of Gabapentin: An Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 284-293.
36. J.S. Ross et al. Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting in Publications Related to Rofecoxib: A Case Study of Industry Documents From Rofecoxib Litigation. J Am Med Assoc 2008; 299: 1800-1812.
37. Ross et al., op. cit. note 19.
38. D. Healy & D. Cattell. Interface between Authorship, Industry and Science in the Domain of Therapeutics. Br J Psychiatry 2003; 183: 22-27.
39. Current Medical Directions. 1999. Worldwide Publications Status Update: Zoloft (Sertraline HCl). New York: 37.
40. Sismondo, op. cit. note 10.
41. Healy & Cattell, op. cit. note 21.
42. G. Harris. 2004. Medical Marketing Treatment by Incentive; As Doctor Writes Prescription, Drug Company Writes a Check. New York Times, June 27.
43. K.P. Hill et al. The ADVANTAGE Seeding Trial: A Review of Internal Documents. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 251-258.
44. G. Golden et al. Medical Education and Communication Companies: An Updated In-Depth Profile. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2002; 22: 55-62.
45. Watermeadow Medical. 2008, lsqb;Accessed 5 Sept 2008]. http://www.watermeadowmedical.com/
46. Medical News Today. 2005. 80% of Pharmaceutical Medical Publications Spending Outsourced in 2004. Medical News Today 7 Mar.
47. 2008. Carus Clinical. , http://carusclinical.com/, Thompson Scientific Connexions. 2008 [Accessed 5 Sept 2008]. http://www.sciconnex.com/ [Accessed 5 Sept 2008], Wolters Kluwer. 2008. http://www.wkhealth.com/ [Accessed 5 Sept 2008], Excerpta Medica. 2008. http://www.excerptamedica.com//index.cfm [Accessed 5 Sept 2008].
48. Peterson, op. cit. note 16.
49. TIPPA, [Accessed 5 Sept 2008]. 2008. http://www.publicationplanningassociation.org/about.aspx
50. ISMPP, [Accessed 5 Sept 2008]. 2008. http://www.ismpp.org/ .
51. Center for Business Intelligence. 2008. http://www.cbinet.com/ [Accessed 5 Sept 2008].
52. S. Sismondo. Ghosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences. Soc Stud Sci, forthcoming.
53. For example, J. Bekelman et al. Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review. JAMA 2003; 289: 454-465;
54. J.Lexchin et al. Pharmaceutical Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcome and Quality: Systematic Review. Br Med J 2003; 326: 1167-1170;
55. S. Sismondo. Pharmaceutical Company Funding and its Consequences: A Qualitative Systematic Review. Contemp Clin Trials 2008; 29: 109-113.
56. Bekelman et al., op. cit. note 36; Lexchin et al., op. cit. note 36.
57. S. Sismondo. How Pharmaceutical Industry Funding Affects Trial Outcomes: Causal Structures and Responses. Soc Sci Med 2008; 66: 1909-1914.
58. D. Bloor. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.
59. J. Fries & E. Krishnan. Equipoise, Design Bias, and Randomized Controlled Trials: The Elusive Ethics of New Drug Development. Arthritis Research and Study 2004; 6: 250-255.
60. M. Angell. 2004. The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. New York: Random House; M. Doucet & S. Sismondo. Evaluating Solutions to Sponsorship Bias. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 627-630;
61. T. Hubbard & J. Love. A New Trade Framework for Global Healthcare R&D. PLoS Biol 2004; 2: 147-150;
62. A. Schafer. Biomedical Conflicts of Interest: a Defence of the Sequestration Thesis - Learning from the Cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. J Med Ethics 2004; 30: 8-24.
63. Food and Drug Administration. 2004. CDER NDAs Approved in Calendar Years 1990-2004 by Therapeutic Potential and Chemical Type. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Available at, [Accessed 6 Dec. 2008] http://www.fda.gov/cder/rdmt/pstable.htm .
64. US Congressional Joint Economic Committee. 2000. The Benefits of Medical Research and the Role of the NIH. Washington, DC. Accessible through the US Federal Government's Document Services.
65. Food and Drug Administration. 2008. Guidance for Industry: Good Reprint Practices for the Distribution of Medical Journal Articles and Medical or Scientific Reference Publications on Unapproved New Uses of Approved Drugs and Approved or Cleared Medical Devices (Draft Guidance), [Accessed 30 April 2008]; Sismondo, op. cit. note 34 http://www.fda.gov/oc/op/goodreprint.html .
66. International Society for Medical Publication Professionals. 2007. ISMPP Code of Ethics. Available at, [Accessed 6 Dec. 2008] http://www.ismpp.org/pdf/94_80_ISMPP%5b1%5d.Code.of.Ethics.pdf .
67. CONSORT. 2006. The CONSORT Statement. Available at http://www.consort-statement.org [Accessed 6 Dec. 2008].
68. E. Wager et al. Good publication practices for pharmaceutical companies. Curr Med Res Opin 2003; 19: 149-154, also available at http://www.gpp-guidelines.org/ [Accessed 6 Dec. 2008]; A. Jacobs & E. Wager. European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21: 317-321, also available at, [Accessed 6 Dec. 2008] http://www.emwa.org/Mum/EMWAguidelines.pdf.
69. For our purposes we can ignore issues of fairness in violations of norms of authorship: The under- or unacknowledged contributors - medical writers, company statisticians, and others - are part of different economies of authorship, and while the inappropriate academic credits accumulated by over-acknowledged contributors are real, their importance fades in relation to the health consequences of ghost management.
70. P. Mirowski & R. van Horne. The Contract Research Organization and the Commercialization of Scientific Research. Soc Stud Sci 2005; 35: 503-584.
71. Blumenthal et al., op. cit. note 16; J. Lexchin. Implications of Pharmaceutical Funding on Clinical Research. Ann Pharmacother 2005; 39: 194-197;
72. M.M. Mello et al. Academic Medical Centers' Standards for Clinical-Trial Agreements with Industry. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 2202-2210.
73. ICMJE, op. cit. note 5.
74. ISMPP. Program of The 3rd Annual Meeting of ISMPP. Philadelphia, 2007 [available from authors].
75. Sismondo, op. cit. note 34.
76. Healy & Cattell, op. cit. note 21.
77. J. Lexchin & D. Light. Commercial Influence and the Content of Medical Journals. Br Med J 2006; 332: 1444-1447.
78. R. Smith. Medical Journals and Pharmaceutical Companies: Uneasy Bedfellows. Br Med J 2003; 326: 1202-1205.
79. A. McCook. Is Peer Review Broken? The Scientist 2006; 20: 26-35.
80. See, for example, Gardiner-Caldwell Group. 2007. http://www.thgc-group.com/ [Accessed 15 Dec 2007].
81. R. Moynihan & A. Cassels. 2005. Selling Sickness: How the World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies are Turning Us All into Patients. Vancouver: Greystone Books.