Merck Passes The Buck, Elsevier Fails to Go Far Enough in Phony Journal Scandal
As the story continues to unfold in the Elsevier-Merck phony journal scandal, one can hardly believe that at some point in the process of creating an entire division of not one, not six, but now we have learned from The Scientist today, 9 journals in the "Australasian Journal of' series".
Better yet, this wasn't an isolated series Elsevier has revealed: 13 more journals were in the words with ISSN numbers assigned to "journals" with names like the Australasian Journal of Psychiatry and Core Journals in Oncology. These, however, were never printed.
As Richard Gallagher pointed out in his editorial in this month's Scientist, "everyone makes mistakes--it's how you handle them that matters." Merck's current stance on all of these matters is as follows: "We believe that your remaining questions are most appropriately directed to Elsevier, the publisher of the Journal."
Simply because Elsevier took the bait doesn't mean Merck is off the hook. Elsevier is rightfully taking the heat for agreeing to create entire divisions of publications that an Elsevier spokesperson admitted "should not have been called 'journals'." What an admission! What to call a publication such as these really is the question--perhaps they will fade into oblivion such that we will not have to give them a name. Not a chance.
Elsevier says that they are drafting new policies, to be in place by the end of June such to prevent anything like this scandal again. Instead, they plan to create a clear delineation between the AJBJM's of the world and actual peer-reviewed journals: "to ensure that such publications are not confused with Elsevier's core peer reviewed journals and that the sponsorship of any publication is clearly disclosed."
There is one matter, that neither Merck nor Elsevier, is willing to put the spotlight on: how much money was spent on creating this phony journal empire. Elsevier maintains that it will not discuss its contractual arrangements with its clients--not an unreasonable posture under normal circumstances--but in this case, the public deserves to know what an academic publishing division can be bought for and turned into a marketing division for a pharmaceutical company.
If Elsevier really wants to put this scandal behind them, they must throw the doors open wide and disclose everything--including how much they were paid. Eventually the facts will come out. When they do--and I'm only guessing the figure is astronomical--Elsevier will look like they were hiding some very dirty laundry. Merck already is passing the buck and leave Elsevier holding the bag. Thus far it looks like they are succeeding.
If Elsevier wants to win that war, they should disclose everything and fast--for their own moral integrity, public confidence, and to put this huge debacle behind them. Only then will they be able to restore the sense that they are trying to do the right thing and that they have nothing more to hide.
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
'the public deserves to know what an academic publishing division can be bought for and turned into a marketing division for a pharmaceutical company.'
Do the numbers really matter that much? The relevant information is that they could be bought at all. If this is so, then someone somewhere is going to have the sort of money it takes. On a side note, I'd be more concerned if the amount was not astronomical. This must be considered a possibility at this stage...
And I'd be more concerned to know what circumstances made them more likely to be bought. This they should come clean about. Preventing other instances of the same problem is also part of their responsibility now, and would be a better way of restoring 'the sense that they are trying to do the right thing and that they have nothing more to hide'. Naming their vulnerability might even be more embarassing than naming numbers, should we care about that.
- by Samia Hurst on Jun 4, 2009 at 5:09 PM | link
Samia, you are right--in part. For as long as there are going to be "real" journals published alongside "advertorial"-filled publications by the same publisher, the temptation to be bought will always exist. But lines can be drawn and boundaries between these divisions such that it is clear. But there is no excuse for calling something a "journal" that is really just an ad sheet paid for by a company masquerading as research. But I don't think that will ever happen again. As for disclosing how and why this scandal happened, I agree that it isn't quite so much about the actual number of zeros and dollar signs; it's about zero accountability on the part of Merck who left Elsevier holding the bag. Now Elsevier, vulnerable as you put it, has yet to learn the lesson that it's infinitely better "to get out in front of it" and have it all be out in the sunshine than for these facts about this scandal to slowly leak out over time.
- by Summer Johnson on Jun 5, 2009 at 12:14 AM | link
In which sense is Elsevier vulnerable? Cause what I think as I keep on reading this is that bad as this may be for Elsevier's reputation, it's unlikely that it will hit them economically (more than the loss of the Merck money, of course...).
Ideally I would like my scientific society to take its journal off Elsevier, 'cause I'm appalled by the whole story. But imagine the consequences. The long discussions we would have first. The decision about where to go. The practicalities of moving. I don't think any scientific society would be willing to take the hassle.
Boycotting a scientific publisher is a tad more complicated than boycotting a supermarket. Stop subscribing and miss out on all that's published in Elsevier journals? Stop downloading will have the same effect. Stop submitting could possibly eventually work.
I fully support the idea of being open with numbers - but take it further. How much money does a giant like Elsevier make with the work most of us give them for free as we assign copyrights to them and peer-review and edit unpaid?
- by Anna Olsson on Jun 5, 2009 at 3:20 AM | link
Public reputation matters and that is where Elsevier is vulnerable. I cannot imagine that scientific societies will pull their journals from Elsevier and move to other academic publishers--because the practices of their legitimate scientific, peer-reviewed journals have not been put into question--there would be no justification for that. Boycotts of Elsevier journals until full disclosure of the facts of this scandal are made would only result in detriment to researchers themselves rather than Elsevier. However, where Elsevier could be hurt is when future advertisers, researchers, or members of the public even are choosing which publisher in which to put their advertisements, their scholarship, or to read research from--will they choose an Elsevier journal over another? Or will the resonance of this scandal stick in their brain and steer them to other publishers and other journals? Only time will tell. But that is the fear Elsevier must have and that is their real vulnerability at this point.
- by Summer Johnson on Jun 5, 2009 at 7:01 PM | link