<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Small Gray Matters &#187; publishing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.smallgraymatters.com/tag/publishing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.smallgraymatters.com</link>
	<description>of brains and their minds</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:27:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>When is peer review not peer view? (hint: when Merck pays Elsevier)</title>
		<link>http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2009/05/08/when-is-peer-review-not-peer-view-hint-when-merck-pays-elsevier/</link>
		<comments>http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2009/05/08/when-is-peer-review-not-peer-view-hint-when-merck-pays-elsevier/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 03:44:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>small and gray</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peer review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pharmaceuticals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[publishing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smallgraymatters.com/?p=45</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This one&#8217;s straight out of the twilight zone: for (at least) the past 5 years, Merck (and possibly other drug companies) has been paying academic publishing giant Elsevier to publish fake journals promoting Merck products. From The Scientist (free registration required):
Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of a publication that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This one&#8217;s straight out of the twilight zone: for (at least) the past 5 years, Merck (and possibly other drug companies) has been paying academic publishing giant Elsevier to publish fake journals promoting Merck products. From <a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/blog.jsp?type=blog&amp;o_url=blog/display/55671&amp;id=55671">The Scientist</a> (free registration required):</p>
<blockquote><p>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 articles&#8211;most of which presented data favorable to Merck products&#8211;that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.</p></blockquote>
<p>The journals in question&#8211;<a href="http://www.sennoma.net/main/archives/2009/05/no_bottom_to_worse_at_elsevier.php">at least 14 of which</a> go by the &#8220;Australasian journal of&#8230;&#8221; moniker&#8211;look and read like peer-reviewed journals, but aren&#8217;t. They&#8217;re apparently just bound collections of ads for drugs like Merck&#8217;s Fosamax.</p>
<p>The Scientist article is really worth a read. It&#8217;s like something out of <a href="http://theonion.com">The Onion</a>, except the funny drains out of it when you realize that literally thousands of physicians have received copies of &#8220;The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine&#8221; or its other Australasian cousins over the past few years.</p>
<p>Elsevier, of course, has responsible and contrite things to say about the episode:</p>
<blockquote><p>A spokesperson for Elsevier, however, told The Scientist, &#8220;I wish there was greater disclosure that it was a sponsored journal.&#8221; Disclosure of Merck&#8217;s funding of the journal was not mentioned anywhere in the copies of issues obtained by The Scientist.</p>
<p>The Elsevier spokesperson said the company wasn&#8217;t aware of how many copies of the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine were produced or how the publication was distributed in Australia, but noted that &#8220;the common practice for sponsored journals is that doctors receive them complimentary.&#8221; The spokesperson added that Elsevier had no plans to look further into the matter.</p></blockquote>
<p>The bitter irony is that Elsevier, along with the other major academic publishers, have spent the last few years ceaselessly <a href="http://prismcoalition.org/">lobbying against the open access movement</a>, on the grounds that open access journals can&#8217;t be trusted to maintain the high quality of peer review that the  commercial publishers provide. Any guesses as to whether Elsevier will rethink that stance following this fiasco?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/05/elsevier-and-merck-published-fake.html">Much more</a> on <a href="http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/05/more-comments-on-elseviers-fake-journal.html">this story</a> over at Peter Suber&#8217;s open access blog&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2009/05/08/when-is-peer-review-not-peer-view-hint-when-merck-pays-elsevier/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
