Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal
It's a safe guess that somewhere at Merck today someone is going through the meeting minutes of the day that the hair-brained scheme for the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine was launched, and that everyone who was in the room is now going to be fired.
The Scientist has reported that, yes, it's true, Merck cooked up a phony, but real sounding, peer reviewed journal and published favorably looking data for its products in them. Merck paid Elsevier to publish such a tome, which neither appears in MEDLINE or has a website, according to The Scientist.
What's wrong with this is so obvious it doesn't have to be argued for. What's sad is that I'm sure many a primary care physician was given literature from Merck that said, "As published in Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, Fosamax outperforms all other medications...." Said doctor, or even the average researcher wouldn't know that the journal is bogus. In fact, knowing that the journal is published by Elsevier gives it credibility!
These kinds of endeavors are not possible without help. One of The Scientist's most notable finds is a Australian rheumatologist named Peter Brooks who served on the "honorary advisory board" of this "journal". His take: "I don't think it's fair to say it was totally a marketing journal", apparently on the grounds that it had excerpts from peer-reviewed papers. However, in his entire time on the board he never received a single paper for peer-review, but because he apparently knew the journal did not receive original submissions of research. This didn't seem to bother him one bit. Such "throwaways" of non-peer reviewed publications and semi-marketing materials are commonplace in medicine. But wouldn't that seem odd for an academic journal? Apparently not. Moreover, Peter Brooks had a pretty lax sense of academic ethics any way: he admitted to having his name put on a "advertorial" for pharma within the last ten years, says The Scientist. An "advertorial"? Again, language unfamiliar to us in the academic publishing world, but apparently quite familiar to the pharmaceutical publishing scene.
It is this attitude within companies like Merck and among doctors that allows scandals precisely like this to happen. While the scandals with Merck and Vioxx are particularly egregious, we know they are not isolated incidents. This one is just particularly so. If physicians would not lend their names or pens to these efforts, and publishers would not offer their presses, these publications could not exist. What doctors would have as available data would be peer-reviewed research and what pharmaceutical companies produce from their marketing departments--actual advertisements.
Summer Johnson, PhD
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
And then Big Pharma wonders why it is the object of such derision and skepticism. This is an industry that has so many self-inflicted wounds. These are businesses-first and last-and they have shown that they will engage in egregious(read: unethical but not illegal) behavior just to turn a dollar. The only thing that really seems to get their attention is being fined and/or banned from the Medicare formulary for lapses in best price, etc... Warning letters from the FDA are a dime a dozen. When Congress decides to give the FDA some real teeth instead of putting it in bed with pharma then I would expect to see some changes.
- by Jeff Bedard on May 1, 2009 at 1:08 PM | link
Thank you for this important story. Pity it probably won't make American mainstream media.
- by Tarrant on May 3, 2009 at 4:22 PM | link
You say In fact, knowing that the journal is published by Elsevier gives it credibility! Well I have to say that it would give it no credibility with me. As the recipient, briefly, of an Elsevier published rag purporting to be a "newspaper" for psychiatrists, I have to tell you I had never seen such a dirty, nasty manipulative piece of spin , obviously dredged up from the swine pits of a marketing department.
It was so bad I felt ill when I read it. I absolutely forbade my secretary to sully the waste-paper bin with it and sent it back with a notethat it was unacceptable.
When I got on the web to find out who Elsevier is, I was shocked to find it was an apparently mainstream company that publishes apparently ethical peer-reviewed journals, including I believe the ANZ Journal of Psychiatry.
The greatest shock was, I have to say that none of my colleagues seemed to be bothered.
- by Elizabeth Harmon on May 3, 2009 at 6:57 PM | link
How many "marketing journals" like this are out there? I have neither the time nor resources to investigate them all. It's always good to "consider the source," when you are able.
-Steve
- by Steve Parker, M.D. on May 3, 2009 at 9:03 PM | link
Very interesting article. I am sending it to my rheumatologist. Incidentally, it's "hare-brained," not "hair-brained."
- by George on May 4, 2009 at 12:37 AM | link
I'm a little surprised that Elsevier published this phony journal. The one thing some of these publishers should still have and be able to leverage is editorial insight and integrity around sources and the quality of the information they provide. If they let go of that there's nothing left.
- by Kris Tuttle on May 4, 2009 at 3:30 AM | link
The fact that a company like Merck sites studies published in a journal from Australasia should clue you in on something being fishy. I don't think scientists with elementary knowledge of journals would give credit to these kinds of gimmicks more than a glimpse, especially if they are citing such outstanding results of a product marketed to Europe and North America.
- by Gokce Yildirim on May 4, 2009 at 9:58 AM | link
"It's a safe guess that somewhere at Merck today someone is going through the meeting minutes of the day that the hair-brained scheme for the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine was launched, and that everyone who was in the room is now going to be fired."
Really?!?! Ya think?!?!
If anyone at Merck gets fired, it will be the sacrificial scapegoats. They got caught, hand in cookie jar, but so what? How is this any better than sending Ph.D.s around to shill meds to M.D.s? The pharmaceuticals have repeatedly and consistently engaged in dis-information campaigns as one of their marketing strategies. Aside from being a bit more blatant and egregious, how is this any different than business as usual for these companies?
And as for the FDA having "real teeth", look at DoD procurement. There are laws with "real teeth" for that, still the schtuss goes on. So long as the pharma-giants and the FDA have regular staff swapping, do you really think they will be effective watchmen?
These people, in the name of profit, distort and hide information, just as the tobacco companies did, and the whistle-blower laws provide little, if any, protection for those who would say otherwise. Meanwhile, real patients suffer from less effective medications, or mostly costly but no more effective medications, all for profit.
Remember "super aspirins"? How about the continuing dis-information campaign about dessicated thyroid vs. synthetic-T4? (No, Armour and other dessicated thyroid products are NOT less consistent. And that has been true for OVER 30 years. But they are less expensive ...)
Bah, Humbug.
Don't expect the wolves to watch over the sheep.
- by Kevin G. Rhoads, Ph.D. on May 4, 2009 at 11:17 AM | link
'Twas ever thus. Before the journal boom the drug reps would show us graphs that ostensibly showed that their "me too" drug was heaps better than the competition but the base line would not be a credible zero and their graphs were simply misleading slices of the data derived from usually in house "research". The purpose of a company owned by shareholders is to make the shareholders money - by any means possible. QED.
- by Dr Mike Matthews on May 4, 2009 at 12:37 PM | link
"Advertorials" are those things in magazines and newspapers that look like articles but say "paid advertising" in the fine print. Arguments with clients (speaking as a former media prepress person) about the need for the last part were not, sadly, uncommon....
- by bellatrys on May 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM | link
While it really isn't much of a focus in my own writing, I end up spending a fair amount of time debunking claims about non-evidence based "medicine" that friends and acquaintances come up with. I think it's incredibly important, especially with the popularization of the anti-vaccine movement in recent years. The ignorance about vaccines in particular, is quite dangerous and something I feel very strongly about.
I hope these vile excuses for human beings understand that it is exactly this kind of crap that fuels the ignorance and magical thinking that goes into the cam movement.
In the interest of remaining civil, I will refrain from expressing how I really feel about these - doctors...
- by DuWayne on May 4, 2009 at 6:35 PM | link
I should think that it's pretty obvious any company which publishes a journal called Homeopathy cares about the bottom line rather than the science.
- by Blake Stacey on May 5, 2009 at 1:02 AM | link
Shocking that Elsevier was part of this. Most physicians would consider them a reputable publisher. Reading journal articles used to be a primary source of learning and pleasure for me. Now it's like trying to enjoy yourself relaxing in a garden of cactuses, reading items written with the intent to mislead. "Catch us if you can," is theme. No pleasure here. Will physicians become more ignorant of the medical literature as a result? It becomes less and less worthwhile reading. Powerful "thought leaders" are the gate leaders for what gets published even as a letter of the editor - so the average physician is left with a feeling of powerlessness. This state of affairs cries out for change, but what entity is the change agent?
The alternations by psychiatrists of the DSM is another lurid tale. The public and physicians themselves are loosing respect for the practice.
- by Piedpiper01 on May 5, 2009 at 4:47 AM | link
What level of culpability does Elseiver have? Did they know?
- by Rob on May 5, 2009 at 3:27 PM | link
This is your military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex hard at work to implement the scientific-military dictatorship. Keep on taking their toxic chemicals and wondering why you feel like heck.
- by silvia on May 5, 2009 at 3:48 PM | link
What is sad is the number of people who have to collude in this, and split the unethical/illegal hair.
Any pharma company has a long review and approval process, that involves legal, supervisory, and corporate management. Moreover, since a good amount of money was involved, additional approval was needed.
Also disappointing is Elsevier's response.
- by anthony tedesco on May 6, 2009 at 8:47 AM | link