Lack of involvement of medical writers and the pharmaceutical industry in publications retracted for misconduct: A systematic, controlled, retrospective study

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1175-1182

  Woolley, Karen L ^a,b,d   Lew, Rebecca A ^c   Stretton, Serina ^c   Ely, Julie A ^c   Bramich, Narelle J ^c   Keys, Janelle R ^c   Monk, Julie A ^c   Woolley, Mark J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF THE SUNSHINE COAST   (Australia)

^c ProScribe Medical Communications ^*  (Australia)

^d ProScribe Medical Communications   (Australia)

Author keywords

Drug industry; Medical writer; Medical writing; Plagiarism; Retraction of publication as topic; Scientific misconduct

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTHOR; BIBLIOMETRICS; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG INDUSTRY; HUMAN; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; WRITING;

BIBLIOMETRICS; DRUG INDUSTRY; HUMANS; JOURNALISM, MEDICAL; PUBLISHING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 79956160599     PISSN: 03007995     EISSN: 14734877     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2011.573546     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Budd JM, Sievert M, SchultzTR. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA 1998;280:296-7 (Pubitemid 28493915)
2. Couzin J, Linger K. Scientific misconduct. Cleaning up the paper trail. Science 2006;312:38-43
3. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 2009;4:e5738
4. Nath SB, Marcus SC, Druss BG. Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? Med J Aust 2006;185:152-4 (Pubitemid 44262800)
5. Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:609-13 (Pubitemid 46768147)
6. Trikalinos NA, Evangelou E, loannidis JP. Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:464-70 (Pubitemid 351446189)
7. PLoS Medicine Editors. Making sense of non-financial competing interests. PLoSMed2008;5:e199
8. McHenry L. Biomedical research and corporate interests: A question of academic freedom. Eth Iss Biomed 2008;6:146-56
9. Woolley KL. Goodbye Ghostwriters!: How to work ethically and efficiently with professional medical writers. Chest 2006;130:921-3 (Pubitemid 44423631)
10. Industry Funding of Medical Education: Report of an AAMC Task Force. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges 2008. Available at: www.aamc.org/publications [Last accessed 24 January 2011]
11. Chipperfield L, Citrone L, Clark J., et al. Authors' submission toolkit: a practical guide to getting your research published. Curr Med Res Opin 2010; 26:1967-82
12. CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2009 Update. Reston, VA: Council of Science Editors, 2009. Available at: www.councilscienceeditors.org [Last accessed 24 January 2011]
13. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2010. Available at: www.icmje.org [Last accessed 24 January 2011]
14. Policy statement: ghost writing initiated by commercial companies. World Association of Medical Editors 2005. Available at: www.wame.org/resources/ policies#ghost [Last accessed 24 January 2011]
15. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003; 289:454-65 (Pubitemid 36119966)
16. Patsopoulos NA, loannidis JP, Analatos AA. Origin and funding of the most frequently cited papers in medicine: database analysis. BMJ 2006; 332:1061-4
17. Definition of research misconduct. US Office of Research Integrity 2009. Available at: http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/definition-misconduct.shtml [Last accessed 24 January 2011]
18. Woolley KL, Ely JA, Woolley MJ. et al. Declaration of medical writing assistance in international peer-reviewed publications. JAMA 2006;296:932-4 (Pubitemid 44285367)
19. Gotzsche PC, Kassirer JP, Woolley KL, et al. What should be done to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature? PLoS Med 2009;6:e23
20. World Bank Country Classifications. World Bank, 2007. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/a-short-history [Last accessed 24 January 2011]
21. Graf C, Battisti WP, Bridges D, et al. Research methods & reporting. Good publication practice for communicating company sponsored medical research: the GPP2 guidelines. BMJ 2009;339:b4330
22. Hamilton CW, Royer MG, AMWA 2002 Task Force on the Contributions of Medical Writers to Scientific Publications. AMWA position statement on the contributions of medical writers to scientific publications. AMWA J 2003; 18:13-16
23. Jacobs A, Wager E. European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:317-22
24. Norris R, Bowman A, Fagan JM, et al. International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) position statement: The role of the professional medical writer. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23:1837-40 (Pubitemid 47300382)
25. Stossel TP. Has the hunt for conflicts of interest gone too far? Yes. BMJ 2008;336:476
26. Jacobs A, Hamilton CW. Decreased evidence of ghostwriting in a 2008 vs 2005 survey of medical writers. The Write Stuff 2009;18:118-23
27. Lee K. Has the hunt for conflicts of interest gone too far? No. BMJ 2008; 336:477
28. Bhandari M, Einhorn TA, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Who did what? (Mis)perceptions about authors' contributions to scientific articles based on order of authorship. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:1605-9 (Pubitemid 36951147)
29. Moreno E, Gutierrez JM. Ten simple rules for aspiring scientists in a low-income country. PLoS Comput Biol 2008;4:e1000024
30. Lin G. China issues another crackdown on scientific misconduct. Science and Development Network (SciDev.Net), 2009. Available at: www.scidev.net/en/ news/china-issues-another-crackdown-on-scientific-misco.html [Last accessed 24 January 2011]
31. Raghuram N. We must restore scientific integrity in Indian research. Science and Development Network (SciDev.Net), 2008. Available at: www.scidev.net/en/opinions/we-must-restore-scientific-integrity-in-indian-res. html [Last accessed 24 January 2011]
32. Xin H. Scientific misconduct. Retractions put spotlight on China's part-time professor system. Science 2009;323:1280-1
33. Opinions on strengthening research integrity of our country. Joint Committee for Promoting Research Integrity of China 2009. Available at: www.sinori.net/jsp/archives/archivesViewDtEn!archivesViewDtEn.action?modelld= 1& columnld=&archivesld=3621 [Last accessed 24 January 2011]
34. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics 2011;37:249-53