-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hit and myth: curse of the ghostwriters
,----[ Quote ]
| Two disturbing stories this week demonstrated the dangers of rejecting best
| practice of systematic review where the literature on a subject is surveyed
| methodically to find all the evidence.
|
| Firstly, the US Public Library of Science used a court order to obtain
| evidence showing how the pharmaceutical company Wyeth employed
| commercial "ghost writers" to produce reviews, published in academic
| journals, under the names of academic authors.
`----
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/08/ben-goldacre-bad-science-research
A lot of anti-Linux rhetric comes about in this way, e.g. O'Gara/Waggener, Ken
Brown, Enderle...
Free software is opposed to this type of nonsense, corruption.
Yesterday:
Medical Papers by Ghostwriters Pushed Therapy
,----[ Quote ]
| Newly unveiled court documents show that ghostwriters paid by a
| pharmaceutical company played a major role in producing 26 scientific papers
| backing the use of hormone replacement therapy in women, suggesting that the
| level of hidden industry influence on medical literature is broader than
| previously known.
`----
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/health/research/05ghost.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
Recent:
Elsevier Does a Microsoft with Open Access
,----[ Quote ]
| I've seen these kind of stories so many times in the world of open source,
| with Microsoft as the main protagonist, that they warm the cockles of my
| heart when I see them popping up in other areas like open access. Why?
| Because if a multi-billion pound company like Elsevier is starting to stoop
| to this kind of tactic, it demonstrates just how profoundly worried it is -
| and how close open access is to widespread acceptance.
`----
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/06/elsevier-does-microsoft-with-open.html
Elsevier Reveals More Details About Its Fake Journal Division
,----[ Quote ]
| Remember how Elsevier and Merck were caught putting out a fake journal that
| had articles favoring Merck drugs, implying peer reviewed articles that
| weren't? Soon afterwards, it came out that Elsevier had a whole division for
| such things. However, following an internal investigation, it looks like
| Elsevier is backtracking a bit and saying that, while the group's practices
| were problematic, most weren't as egregious as the "Australasian Journal of
| Bone and Joint Medicine (AJBJM)" that was created by Merck and Elsevier.
`----
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090606/0632555149.shtml
Elsevier Had A Whole Division Publishing Fake Medical Journals
,----[ Quote ]
| Remember a week ago when we wrote about pharma giant Merck and publishing
| giant Elsevier working together to publish a fake journal that talked up
| various Merck drugs and was used by doctors to show that the drugs were safe
| and useful?
`----
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090510/2157144822.shtml
No bottom to worse at Elsevier?
,----[ Quote ]
| The latest development, though, strikes me as something that should be
| shouted from every available rooftop: Elsevier simply must answer the
| questions raised.
|
| Via Dorothea: Jonathan Rochkind has done a little "forensic librarianship"
| and raised astonishing questions about the entire imprint, Excerpta Medica,
| which published the fake journal that started all of this.
|
| Go read Jonathan, but the bottom line is this: Excerpta Medica does not
| provide a straightforward list of its own publications or make clear which
| are, ahem, "industry-sponsored".
`----
http://www.sennoma.net/main/archives/2009/05/no_bottom_to_worse_at_elsevier.php
Another Reason We Need Open Access
,----[ Quote ]
| One of the more laughable reasons that traditional science publishers cite in
| their attempts to rubbish open access is that it's somehow not so rigorous
| as "their" kind of publishing. There's usually a hint that standards might be
| dropped, and that open access journals aren't, well, you know, quite proper.
`----
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/05/another-reason-we-need-open-access.html
Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal
,----[ Quote ]
| 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.
`----
http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/
Merck And Elsevier Exposed For Creating Fake Peer Review Journal
,----[ Quote ]
| Of course, this is exactly the sort of thing that you can do when everything
| is locked up and proprietary, rather than open. There's almost no way to
| confirm or check the data or information to make sure it's legit, so people
| tend to assume it is. In that regard, perhaps it's no surprise that the two
| companies eventually went down this road, but it does highlight one of the
| problems with the way the system works today. As Shirky later points out this
| is hardly unique for a firm like Elsevier, which has faced some serious
| ethical questions regarding its publications in the past as well.
`----
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090503/1255574725.shtml
Related:
The serials crisis has a name, and it's Reed Elsevier.
,----[ Quote ]
| Mind you, I don't mean to imply that we should launch another boycott;
| reigning in Elsevier's profit margins and/or market share would do little to
| offset the serials crisis. The only answer to that, in the long term, is Open
| Access, because it scales where Toll access doesn't. No, this entry is not
| really about OA at all, it's just a little kick in the shins for my favorite
| Greedy Bastard Publishers.
`----
http://www.sennoma.net/main/archives/2008/12/the_serials_crisis_has_a_name.php
Elsevier steals, then copyrights other people's free stuff
,----[ Quote ]
| Reed Elsevier caught copying my content without my permission:
|
| Â Â I was not asked for, and did not give, permission for my work to appear
| Â Â on that page, much less in that format. Needless to say, I felt a little
| Â Â slighted.
|
| Â Â The website in question appears to be a custom version of the LexisNexis
| Â Â search engine. This particular version appears to be Elsevier's own
| Â Â custom version, intended for internal use. I don't have conclusive proof
| Â Â of that, but the title bar at the top of the page reads, "Elsevier
| Â Â Corporate", and the person who accessed my blog from that page had an IP
| Â Â address that's registered to MD Consult, which is an Elsevier subsidiary.
| Â Â My guess is that Elsevier's keeping track of news articles and blog posts
| Â Â that mention them, along with the context in which they're mentioned.
|
| [...]
|
| Reed Elsevier Is Stealing My Words:
|
| Â Â I received an email from ScienceBlogling Mike Dunford that Reed Elsevier
| Â Â had excerpted one of my posts. No problem there--I like it when people
| Â Â read my stuff....except for one thing:
|
| Â Â The fuckers copyrighted my words.
|
| Copyright violation?:
|
| Â Â Apparently, publishing companies don't always get permission for the
| Â Â materials they use, either. Mike Dunford caught Reed Elsevier copying his
| Â Â content without permission (from Stephen Downes).
`----
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2008/08/elsevier_steals_then_copyright.php
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkqBWAAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5F7wCePqimDLDM2+ofPiRL+MuKVuHB
8LoAoJusUjWWQAjxSiledcQ/82uhYg+f
=hugv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
