The recent discovery that Elsevier, the publisher of many top quality, peer reviewed, medical journals, were publishing a 'journal' in Australia that was apparently paid for by Merck raised a significant number of eyebrows in the publishing and medical world. Most publications go through a stringent series of tests to ensure that the information published is true, accurate, and independent of medical companies. Unfortunately, their credibility in this area is in some doubt due to this and subsequent revelations in The Scientist (NB: Free Subscription Required) that a total of six fake journals were published.
Big Pharma is also under scrutiny as these publications are being used to 'push' their drugs on the basis of 'truthful' research. When a doctor is being sold the benefits of a particular drug by a pharmaceutical company representative they would normally be pointed toward the relevant publication as proof of the benefit/efficacy of a particular brand of drug on the basis of sound research and testing. "Must be true, it's in journal 'X'". This would not appear to be the case here. In fact, the revelation today that there were in fact six paid for journals published makes things much worse.
In an attempt to smooth the troubled waters, Michael Hansen, the CEO (the type of person who is responsible for due oversight, captain at the helm, etc...) of Elsevier made a public statement regarding the matter here. Somehow, given the revelations, his words seem somewhat shallow and at odds with the facts. "But I can assure all that the integrity of Elsevier’s publications and business practices remains intact.” Oh yeah? Not with me it is not.
Frankly, I find it disgraceful and totally lacking in honesty and integrity. The public has to have something that they can trust and depend upon. There are clear issues when the CEO does not know what is going on in his own company. There would clearly be journal review meetings, strategic planning, copies of journals scattered liberally around the office, and would you, as a CEO, suddenly wonder why those guys from drug company X suddenly start winking at you and are overly friendly with their invites to their country clubs etc. He is unaware of of this? Yadda, yadda.
For anyone needing medical care it raises significant doubts regarding whether you are getting the best drug for your particular ailment. Is the one the doctor prescribing from valid research or is it simply because the favourable research was paid for? Is the report regarding any potential side-effects true or masked? These are serious and genuine questions anyone should be asking. If I were a doctor I would be knocking on Elseviers door and laughing in the face of the drug company rep if they metioned Elsevier. As a researcher I would certainly not want my hard work to be cast in doubt and would ensure I looked to a publisher I could trust not to cast doubt on my own personal integrity.
As a related point, I have recently read (and thoroughly enjoyed) "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre. In the book he highlights many of the bad things about research, nutritionists and lots of other goodies. Here is his web site where you can find out more. The book is thoroughly entertaining and an enjoyable, fascinating read. Check out Amazon reviews.
There is an internal review underway within Elsevier but, as yet, there has been no disclosure regarding who else paid to have a false journal published. I believe there should be FULL disclosure if the company is to maintain its credibility in the medical and publishing world. It is remarkably similar to the Payola scandals that rocked the music industry but with far more serious and potentially dangerous repurcussions for any patient receiving drug treatment. Put simply, it stinks. Shareholders of Elsevier should be knocking on Mr. Hansen's door.
No comments:
Post a Comment