![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 4 of 4. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by desolationrower on May 13, 2009, at 15:51:33
[quote]Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articlesmost of which presented data favorable to Merck productsthat appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.
The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which was published by Exerpta [HF-sic] Medica, a division of scientific publishing juggernaut Elsevier, is not indexed in the MEDLINE database, and has no website (not even a defunct one).[/quote]
http://crookedtimber.org/2009/05/04/astroturf-journals/
http://crookedtimber.org/2009/05/11/friends-dont-let-friends-publish-in-elsevier-journals/
-d/r
Posted by garnet71 on May 13, 2009, at 18:40:46
In reply to fake medical journals, posted by desolationrower on May 13, 2009, at 15:51:33
Larry Hoover-where are you??? Pseudoscience!!!!
(The enemy!!!!)
lol
Posted by Phillipa on May 13, 2009, at 20:29:57
In reply to Re: fake medical journals, posted by garnet71 on May 13, 2009, at 18:40:46
Lar will see it not to worry. Love Phillipa
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 25, 2009, at 10:17:05
In reply to fake medical journals, posted by desolationrower on May 13, 2009, at 15:51:33
Sorry, just catching up. I subscribe to The Scientist, the source for this information, and it took me a while to find the time to read it.
Subsequent to the initial report, they've added more detail.
Here are some excerpts:
"Scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of six publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted.Elsevier is conducting an "internal review" of its publishing practices after allegations came to light that the company produced a pharmaceutical company-funded publication in the early 2000s without disclosing that the "journal" was corporate sponsored....
An Elsevier spokesperson told The Scientist in an email that a total of six titles in a "series of sponsored article publications" were put out by their Australia office and bore the Excerpta Medica imprint from 2000 to 2005. These titles were: the Australasian Journal of General Practice, the Australasian Journal of Neurology, the Australasian Journal of Cardiology, the Australasian Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, the Australasian Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine, and the Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint [Medicine]. Elsevier declined to provide the names of the sponsors of these titles, according to the company spokesperson.
"It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures," said Michael Hansen, CEO of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, in a statement issued by the company. "This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place." "
As did The Scientist, and Elsevier, I attribute the blame to Elsevier for publishing the material. As the events only took place in Australia, I further blame individuals who exhibited poor judgment, rather than any systemic impropriety. I'm not saying that Merck's marketing department is blameless, but it should never have gotten past the proposal stage.
Lar
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.