blog.bioethics.net

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

The only thing unusual about this is that Merck would resort to a fake journal when they have so many easy ways to get their propaganda in the real journals.
Bob Hall, Querétaro, Mexico

- by Bob Hall on May 2, 2009 at 7:39 AM | link

Just in: Dr. Brooks named to Australasian Medical Hall of Fame. Invitation and plane tickets (via Merck) to induction ceremony to follow.

- by The Wise Bard (Madison, WI) on May 2, 2009 at 9:25 AM | link

Shocking insight into yet another PR gaffe. I agree totally with Jeff - it is no wonder that Pharma companies and brands receive such bad press. Have they not heard of being open, honest, transparent and authentic?

I guess not.

This is also one of the problems which leads to big Pharma shunning the delights of online communication and conversation. One day, one day and we are so trying to help them!

- by Jon Moss on May 3, 2009 at 10:49 AM | link

In re: Giving the FDA teeth.

It is called Capture Theory, and it has been studied extensively by political economists. Basically, executives at firms spend the firms' money on politicians who oversee the regulatory agencies that oversee the firms. If the regulatory agencies' managers step out of line, the firms' managers threaten to pull the money that they contribute to the political overseers. The political overseers threaten to pull the regulatory agencies' funding, and the regulatory agencies' agents back off.

We can 'ought' and 'should' about it all day long. Until someone figures out how to break the funding/power cycle, these kinds of games will continue, albeit with the occasional wrist-slap.

- by Charles Evans on May 3, 2009 at 10:58 AM | link

And why would I want to publish in an Elsevier journal after this? Their reputation is damaged as well.

- by Steve T., Ph.D. on May 3, 2009 at 11:34 AM | link

Hey, let's not forget Elsevier's complicity here.

- by Chris on May 3, 2009 at 12:08 PM | link

We need to remember this when we hear arguments against requiring all publicly funded research to be made publicly available without the "gate keepers". The publications argue that they provide value in the peer review process, which was undoubtedly true before frauds such as this.

- by Craig P. Earls on May 3, 2009 at 12:35 PM | link

I don't blame Merck - corporate culture creates an anything-to-win mentality that crushes ethics. It's hard for me to think any less of Merck than I already do. I will, however, reconsider publishing in Elsevier journals in my field, and stop pushing my institution to carry any Elsevier journals (which I've been doing.) They've taken a big credibility hit by playing along with this.

- by Disappointed on May 3, 2009 at 1:14 PM | link

Moola Moo-la, Moola Moo-la, Moola Mooo Moola-la...

Payoffs explain Doctors behavior. One Mercedes and one country club house are not enough.

There are greedy Republican doctors who think they are elite and you the public get what you deserve... ever had a sadistic specialist white male doctor?

Corporations like Merck are profit maximizing therefore cost minimizing firms... for Merck it is about quarterly profit...

And well death and injury from products inflicted on the American public?

Limited liability granted corporations from civil and criminal actions...

Single payer would rid the US of the ENTIRE health insurance industry. 2/3 of doctors, the American public and a greater percentage of registered nurses support SINGLE PAYER not a health insurance industry cooked up rip off universal plan... like Willard Romney's forced purchase rip off in Massachusetts.

And of course the dissolution of he US corporation IS the "sine qua non" of Democracy.

Get your pitchforks, torches and rope, on sale now in the garden and hardware sections of your local Wal-Mart...

- by Problem Is on May 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM | link

I assume Dr. Brooks will be censured by his licensing organization for this; after all, it's clearly an ethics breach and can't possibly be supported by any government, hospital or professional organization.

- by Larry Schauble, MD on May 3, 2009 at 1:30 PM | link

So... Merck uses fake peer-reviewed journal to promote Fosamax, which is promoted heavily to middle-age women. Like my mother, who has suffered through two knee replacements, sliced ligaments in her shoulders, and bony growths in her mouth as a result of Fosamax use.

Here is a portion of her story (names redacted):

I spent all day yesterday in San Antonio in doctor's offices. First was the check-up for my shoulder. The dr. is pleased with the progress of the movement and strength of my arm. He does not expect me to be able to get it above my head and hold it there for 6 more months, but as he said, "We are progressing slowly, so as to keep the arms strengthening as it is gaining movement." So, have some new exercises and go back in 3 months.

Next on the agenda was trying to find an Oral and Maxillofacial dr. who would take me on short notice to check the lesions in my mouth from the infection that has been ongoing since March. With the help from *****, my nephew who is a dr., got the name of one physician, who in turn sent me to two different dr.s who he thought could help. Had one appointment at 1PM, and then another one in another location at 2:30pm.

At each location, not only did the one dr. see me, but brought in his associates to see what was happening in my mouth. So, my big mouth was the object of much interest.

The story seems to be that I have been on Fosamax for almost 10 years. I was put on a daily dosage of 10 mg. after a bone scan showed that I had some bone loss after being on meds for the blood clot in my left leg. Later, when the once a week dosage came out, my family physician put me on the Fosamax D at 70 mg., once a week. Even tho my last several bone scans have been normal, the family physician thought that I should stay on the medication.

In February, I had the flu and cut the roof of my mouth with a cough drop. It left a flap of skin dangling, (which later fell off) and I noticed that the roof of my mouth looked swollen...like someone had put up a half-egg shape of silly putty in the roof of my mouth. When I went into the dr. for what I thought was a sinus infection, he asked if I had had that large spot for long. (Which I had not noticed until I cut the roof of my mouth.) It had puss pockets of infection on it in several places. Not knowing what to do, he sent me for an MRI to see if I had a sinus infection. Gave me an antiobiotic for the sinus infection. He also told me to see my dentist for the roof of my mouth.

Dentist says he has never seen anything like it, but had been reading that the drugs for bone loss has been causing some troubles and he had been reading about them in his professional magazines. So, since I had finished the meds from the family dr. about a week before this visit, and the lesions were returning to the swollen part of my mouth, he also wrote a prescription for an antiobiotic. When I returned in two weeks, and the problem was still there, he sent me to an Ear, Nose and Throat Specialist.
who took a biopsy (which was benign), and put me on the antibiotics again for two weeks. After being off the meds for about a week, the lesions began to return. This has happened several times. Take the meds, get off and the problem returns.

The MRI did show where there was some bone growth into the roof of my mouth, stretching the skin in the roof of my mouth, making it very delicate and easily torn. After several rounds of the meds and problem returning, the ENT Dr. said that I needed to go to someone else more specialized. This was last Monday. When he could get no dr.'s to return his calls immediately, he asked if I had family in either SA or Houston that may have some connections to dr.s. So, I chose ***** and he talked to one dr. who then in turn helped me with getting in touch with two different dr offices. Both were gracious to give me appointments when I called at 9am yesterday. Both understanding that 1. I was in SA that day, and 2. that they needed to see the mouth while there were lesions present.

Both dr. offices came to the conclusion that this growth in the roof of my mouth has been caused from the use of Fosamax D.
The Fosamax D causes other complications making healing in that area very slow if at all. The second dr.'s office, they spent almost 4 hours talking about past history, etc. Looking back, the sudden growth of the bone spurs on the left knee, causing the knee replacement which we thought was several years down the line. Then, the growth of bone spurs on the right shoulder, which cut tendons and caused surgery in that area.

What the Fosamax and other drugs like it (bisphosphonates) do, is: They cause the osteoblasts to grow and inhibit the osteoclasts from sloughing off of the dead bone. Working together is what they do in a normal body function. Therefore, instead of like your skin producing new skin and the old skin sloughing off, this was not happening in my body. I was just continuing to grow bone. The Oral surgeons have been researching this for several year, as the roof of the mouth seems to be a common place for this to take place. They have found that with the skin being stretched thin and cutting and infection getting into the areas, that the bone was getting infected. When they tried surgery to removed the infected bone, they found that the area did not want to heal properly, and/or took very long to heal. Thus, they are now not operating, use instead a long term use of antiobiotics, hoping to clear the infection and try to have the patient mostly eat softer foods and keep the mouth rinsed with a special mouthwash. Sometimes the skin will still slough off and the bone be prominent. But the final thing is that they suggest talking with the family dr. to remove the use of the meds for bone strenghtening.

Thought that you might be interested in what some of these drugs can do once having been used long-term. Possibly, if I had stopped using them once my bone scar returned to normal, this would not have happened. The dr.s are hoping that in 6 months, the infection will be gone in the bone and hopefully being off the Fosamax that the osteoclasts will begin to slough off some of the bone addition in the roof of my mouth.

- by bob on May 3, 2009 at 3:33 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

You know Silvia, I work deep in the bowels of Big Pharam. If I ever did something like this I would hope our CEO would do me the honor of punching me in the face as hard as he could prior to having me fired (also as hard as he could).

And then the FDA could send me a letter inviting me "not back" to the industry.

The sad part is, you could write a perfectly legitimate report about a real set of experiments reporting accurate data and everything and have it end up in this travesty because your results lined up with someones marketing message.

- by Austringer on May 8, 2009 at 12:41 PM | link

The Atrophy Of Objectivity

If I were to rate the corruptive tactics performed by big pharmaceutical companies during my intimate experience with them , the frequent and intentional strategy of implementing fabricated and unreliable results of clinical trials performed by others possibly tops the list.

A list of corruptive tactics by the pharmaceutical industry that sponsors such trials. By this atrophy of the scientific method absent of authenticity that has been known to occur, harm and damage is possibly done to the health of the public.

Most would agree that the science of research should be sound and as aseptic as possible- completely free of deliberate and reckless interference.

However, it appears, money and increased profits can be a catalyst for disregard for human health with the clinical trial process that is largely unregulated.

This is particularly a factor on post-marketing studies of various pharmaceutical companies, as some pharmaceutical corporations seem to be deliberately conducting nothing less than seeding trials- with about a 50 percent tax credit for these trial sponsors.

Trials that are in fact pointless and void of scientific benefit.

Decades ago, clinical trials were conducted at academic settings that focused on the acquisition of knowledge and the completely objective discoveries of drugs and devices to benefit mankind.

Then, in 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act, Public Law 96-517,was created, which allowed for such places with their researchers to profit off of their discoveries that were performed for pharmaceutical companies and others in the past.

Furthermore, such academic institutions were coerced to license patented inventions to those pharmaceutical companies that will then commercialize these discoveries paid for in large part by the taxpayers who funded this research to a degree.

This resulted in the creation of for-profit research trial sites without any academic affiliation that are called Contract Research Organizations.

CROS utilize primarily community patient care clinics whose staff are absent of any research training compared with the former researchers that existed decades ago. They are regulated, so they say, by institutional review boards, or IRBs. Both are for profit and essentially cater to the sponsor of the clinical trial in which all are involved with manipulating.

Because of this structure, the clinical trial investigators of these pharmaceutical sponsored trials are likely novice compared with academic researchers.

This, of course, happens with intent by the sponsor who can and does control all aspects of the clinical trial protocol at the site locations of a clinical trial that the pharmaceutical company structures and even gives the trial the title they want for their marketing purposes.

These quite numerous CROS are in fact for- profit, with some CROs making billions of dollars a year, and this market continues to grow.

The trials conducted at such places again are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies that control and manipulate all aspects of the trial being conducted involving their particular drug chosen to be studied.

Etiology for their deception regarding this manipulation is because the pharmaceutical company that sponsors such a trial is basically creating a marketing tool for this drug of theirs to be studied in this manner.

This coercion is done by various methods of deception in subtle and tacit methods.

As a result, research in this protocol of the sponsor ensures favorable results of the sponsor’s medication that is involved in the clinical trial they clearly own.

These activities are again believed to be absent of true or applied regulation to any degree, and therefore have the autonomy to create whatever they want to benefit the pharmaceutical sponsor.

There likely is a collusive relationship between the sites, the CRO, and the sponsor, as this whole system is planned beforehand by the pharmaceutical sponsor of their clinical trial to again be utilized to increase the market share of the drug studied that they promote.

Guest authorship has been known to be aggressively recruited by sponsors by paying a known opinion leader to sign off on the completed clinical trial.

Furthermore, the pharmaceutical sponsor recruits investigators to be used for this function of what ultimately is a fabricated clinical trial protocol.

The trial manuscript and protocol design is prepared by those employed by the drug company sponsor upon specific direction of this sponsor on how this should be prepared.

The medical program coordinator of a particular sponsored trial is an actual employee of the sponsoring drug company.

This person also may act as the publisher, manuscript version reviewer, and the clinical trial director who works with the drug company’s hired CRO editors whose objectives are to benefit the sponsor.

Typical and ultimate cost of the final manuscript of the trial to the sponsor created by the hired CRO and the recruited ghostwriters exceeds 1000 dollars per page, some have said.

Merck engages in this behavior, which shocked many, as they were always viewed as an ethical pharmaceutical company that always placed patients over profits.

Apparently, this is no longer the case. There are other well known and large pharmaceutical corporations that consider this plan of action standard operating procedures to ensure growth of their drugs.

Further disturbing is that once the creation of the trials is completed, the research paper is often composed with specific directions by the sponsor to writers known again as ghostwriters.

These people are usually not identified and acknowledged by the sponsor, and may not be trained in clinical research overall, as they are simply freelance writers.

One does not need research training or certification in order to perform this function. Rarely do clinical trial ghostwriters question their instructions about their assignment, which is clearly deceptive and undocumented by the pharmaceutical sponsor.

Also, these hired mystery writers are known to make about 100 grand a year performing this deception full time.

This activity removes accountability and authenticity of the fabricated clinical trial even further.

The corruptive act is finally completed by the sponsor hiring again a known thought leader as an author to have their name be placed on the trial, while this hired author likely had absolutely no involvement with the trial, or even reviewing the trial is not asked or required by the hired author, others have said.

To have the trial published, the sponsor has been known to pay an obscure journal, and the sponsor bribes the journal in a few ways, such as the sponsor purchasing from a selected journal thousands of reprints of their study from the journal, for example.

Again, how often this process is performed is unknown, yet frequent enough to create hundreds of such false writers mentioned earlier and progressively growing research sites to receive the support the pharmaceutical industry.

So benefits of pharmaceuticals that are studied in such a malicious way potentially can harm patients and their treatment options along with clear safety risks as a result of this process.

The purchased reprints of the fabricated clinical trial are then bought by the sponsor of the study from the medical journal they hired to publish this trial.

The reprints are eventually distributed to the sponsor’s sales force to share the content with prescribers, with the sales force completely unaware about this manipulation that has happened with such a trial that benefits the drug they promote for their employer.

As a bonus, the sponsor may agree to pay the chosen medical journal to advertise their products to be placed in this journal as well.

Such misconduct discussed so far impedes research and the scientific method with frightening ethical and harmful concerns, as stated previously.

If so, our health care treatment options with drugs that are claimed to have benefits that are absent have now become unreliable in large part due to such corruptive situations.

Not to mention the absence of objectivity that has been intentionally eliminated with trials produced in this way.

More now than ever, meds are removed from the market or are given black box warnings due to the damaging effects of drugs approved by the FDA. We as citizens need to dig deep and ask why this is happening.

Transparency and disclosure needs to happen with the pharmaceutical industry for reasons such as this as well as many others, in order to correct what we have historically relied upon for conclusive proof, which is the scientific method.

More importantly, research should be conducted in a way that the sponsor cannot in any way interfere in such ways described in this article, which would require independent clinical trial sites with no involvement from the maker of the drug studied in a clinical trial.

And clearly, regulation has to be enforced not selectively, but in a complete fashion regarding such matters.
Public awareness would be a catalyst for this to occur, after initially experiencing a state of total disbelief that such operations actually are conducted by such people, of course.

We can no longer be dependent on others for our optimal health.

Knowledge is power, and is also possibly a lifesaver.

“Ethics and Science need to shake hands.” ……. Richard Cabot

Dan Abshear

Author’s note: What has been written was based upon information and belief.

Published on: www.brainblogger.com

- by Dan on May 10, 2009 at 12:05 PM | link

Summer, I'd have thought that someone with a PhD would know that when you use the particle "a" before a word that begins with an "a", you change it to "an".
For example, "an Australian", not "a Australian", and "an advertorial", not "a advertorial".

- by sunny on May 20, 2009 at 7:44 PM | link

Thanks for this good post..........

- by Clinical Trial Regulations on May 21, 2009 at 5:16 AM | link

The Australian newspaper has done a wonderful job exposing what were tacit tactics utilized by Merck to promote Vioxx, as the paper covers the class action trial regarding Vioxx, which began in late March. This would not have happened in the U.S., I'm sad to say, this kind of exposure.

I launched Vioxx as a representative with Merck back in 1999. This drug was very important to Merck for two reasons: One is that Lipitor, which was approved in 1997, rapidly acquired the lion's share of the statin market (Merck has the lion's share of this class of medications with Zocor before this happened). Merck was not prepared for this rapid uptake of Lipitor, and this vexed Merck greatly.

Secondly, Vioxx got approved 6 months after Celebrex, and this concerned Merck. Historically, the drug that is first in class that gains approval first will capture the lion's share of the market, and maintain the lead over the competitors- in this case, the Cox II class of medications.

Celebrex getting approval before Vioxx concerned Merck as well. So the plans implement read almost daily in The Australian are plans that were implemented in the United States as well. Merck was desperate, and clearly was willing to cross ethical lines to assure Vioxx would be the success that Merck needed it to be due to competition.

What we read about this trial that continues is accurate, even though Merck is saying in their defense that most of we read is 'mis-statements', or embellishments. What is now shared with the world are statements that are false, misleading, or lack context.

Merck insists that it has been vigilant in regulating and sharing all cardiovascular issues associated with Vioxx. They say they have acted responsibly and appropriately as it developed and commercialized Vioxx- acting in the best interest of patients always.

What we read is true, and the ethically if not legally corrupt plans of actions implemented by Merck were with deliberate intent and reckless disregard as they continued to strive to gain additional market share with an unsafe drug of theirs.

Dan Abshear

- by Dan on Jun 12, 2009 at 11:00 PM | link

There is a lot of corruption in pharma. Its "remedies" are mainly synthetic chemicals. Like Vioxx, they often do more harm than good. Many times, these companies make up "diagnoses" to sell their products. They do that by labelling sadness as "clinical depression" and ordinary childhood acting up as "ADHD".

- by Laura Borst on Sep 1, 2009 at 12:08 AM | link

While browsing the net, I found two more fake journals in Computer Science:

(1) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS) (http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/contact-ijcsis)

(2) International Journal of Computer and Network Security (IJCNS) (http://www.ijcns.org/)

- by Petre Dini on Sep 21, 2009 at 3:31 AM | link

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.

- by indir on Mar 10, 2010 at 12:50 PM | link