Scientific Journal Shenanigans

[Stephen J Bensman]

Loet,

Being a capitalist pig, I have an online subscription to The WSJ.  It is my
daily Bible.  I have e-mailed you online access--us capitalist pigs enjoy
such privileges--to that article.  Let me know if that works for  you.

SB




Loet Leydesdorff <loet at LEYDESDORFF.NET>@listserv.utk.edu> on 12/17/2005
05:35:07 AM

Please respond to ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
       <SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu>

Sent by:    ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
       <SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu>


To:    SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu
cc:     (bcc: Stephen J Bensman/notsjb/LSU)

Subject:    Re: [SIGMETRICS] Scientific Journal Shenanigans


Dear colleagues:

Does someone happen to have a subscription on The Wall Street Journal so
that it is easy to download the electronic version of the full text? I
would
like to use this in an education program.

Thanks in advance.
With best wishes,


Loet

> December 13, 2005
>
>
>  PAGE ONE
>
>
> DOW JONES REPRINTS
>
> Ghost Story
> At Medical Journals, Writers
> Paid by Industry Play Big Role
>
> Articles Appear Under Name
> Of Academic Researchers,
> But They Often Get Help
> J&J Receives a Positive 'Spin'
> By ANNA WILDE MATHEWS
> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL December 13, 2005; Page A1
>
> In 2001, the American Journal of Kidney Diseases published an
> article that touted the use of synthetic vitamin D. Its
> author was listed as Alex J.
> Brown, an associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
>
> But recently, that same article was featured as a work sample
> by a different person: Michael Anello, a free-lance medical
> writer, who posted a summary of it on his Web site. Mr.
> Anello says he was hired to write the article by a
> communications firm working for Abbott Laboratories, which
> makes a version of the vitamin D product. Dr. Brown agrees he
> got help in writing but says he redid part of the draft.
>
> It's an example of an open secret in medicine: Many of the
> articles that appear in scientific journals under the bylines
> of prominent academics are actually written by ghostwriters
> in the pay of drug companies. These seemingly objective
> articles, which doctors around the world use to guide their
> care of patients, are often part of a marketing campaign by
> companies to promote a product or play up the condition it treats.
>
> A HIDDEN ROLE?
>
>
> Now questions about the practice are mounting as medical
> journals face unprecedented scrutiny of their role as
> gatekeeper for scientific information. Last week, the New
> England Journal of Medicine admitted that a 2000 article it
> published highlighting the advantages of Merck & Co.'s Vioxx
> painkiller omitted information about heart attacks among
> patients taking the drug. The journal has said the deletions
> were made by someone working from a Merck computer. Merck
> says the heart attacks happened after the study's cutoff date
> and it did nothing wrong.
>
> The Annals of Internal Medicine tightened its policies on
> writer disclosure this year after a University of Arizona
> professor listed as the lead author of a Vioxx article in
> 2003 said he had little to do with the research in it.
>
> The practice of letting ghostwriters hired by communications
> firms draft journal articles -- sometimes with
> acknowledgment, often without -- has served many parties
> well. Academic scientists can more easily pile up high-
> profile publications, the main currency of advancement.
> Journal editors get clearly written articles that look
> authoritative because of their well- credentialed authors.
>
> Increasingly, though, editors and some academics are stepping
> forward to criticize the practice, saying it could hurt
> patients by giving doctors biased information. "Scientific
> research is not public relations," says Robert Califf, vice
> chancellor of clinical research at Duke University Medical
> Center. "If you're a firm hired by a company trying to sell a
> product, it's an entirely different thing than having an open
> mind for scientific inquiry. ...What would happen to a PR
> firm that wrote a paper that said this product stinks? Do you
> think their contract would be renewed?"
>
> Drug companies say they're providing a service to busy
> academic researchers, some of whom may not be skilled
> writers. The companies say they don't intend for their
> ghostwriters to bias the tone of articles that appear under
> the researchers' names.
>
> Authors "have to sign off on everything," says Mark Horn, a
> Pfizer Inc.
> medical director. "This is properly viewed as a way to more
> efficiently make the transition from raw data to finished
> manuscript." Professors who get writing help generally say
> they give the writers input and check the work carefully.
>
>
> The criticism of ghostwriting is one of several issues that
> have put scientific journals on the defensive. Even journal
> editors acknowledge they have sometimes done a poor job of
> detecting when articles cherry-pick favorable data to promote
> a particular drug or treatment. Some health insurers have
> stopped taking what they read in the journals on faith and
> are employing analysts to scrutinize articles for negative
> data that are buried.
>
> It's hard to say how widespread ghostwriting is. An analysis
> presented at a medical-journal conference in September found
> that just 10% of articles on studies sponsored by the drug
> industry that appeared in top medical journals disclosed help
> from a medical writer. Often the help isn't disclosed. An
> informal poll of 71 free-lance medical writers by the
> American Medical Writers Association found that 80% had
> written at least one manuscript that didn't mention their
> contributions.
>
> In the case of the vitamin D article, Dr. Brown says Abbott
> asked him to write it but he didn't have time. He had written
> an earlier article on the subject. "They said they would have
> one of their people write it, update my old review article
> and I would check it," he recalls. Mr. Anello, a Milwaukee
> writer who studied biochemistry at the University of
> Wisconsin, says he wrote the new article. "I've done a lot of
> ghostwriting jobs," he says, adding that sometimes he works
> closely with the named authors. (See related document excerpts3.)
>
> Dr. Brown says he had to rewrite "at least 30% to 40%" of Mr.
> Anello's draft. In retrospect, he says, he probably should
> have asked Abbott who Mr. Anello was and "if that person
> should be acknowledged." Abbott said the article's content
> was "under the complete discretion" of Dr. Brown and didn't
> discuss details. The journal's managing editor declined to
> comment because the journal is under new management.
>
> Following questions from The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Anello
> removed the article summary from his Web site. Until
> recently, his online bibliography listed other scientific
> publications he has written under others' bylines that have
> yet to be published. The byline on one was "author to be named."
>
> Medical writers frequently have scientific backgrounds. Some
> work for universities, drug companies or
> medical-communications firms, while others are free-lancers
> who typically get $90 to $120 an hour. A communications firm
> may charge $30,000 or more to have a team of writers, editors
> and graphic designers put together an article. Some of these
> firms are part of larger companies in publishing and
> advertising such as Thomson Corp. and Reed Elsevier PLC.
>
> Elsevier's Excerpta Medica unit helps clients craft
> publications for prestigious scientific journals. Elsevier
> itself publishes many such journals, most notably The Lancet.
> Excerpta Medica says on its Web site that its relationship
> with its corporate parent's journals "allows us access to
> editors and editorial boards." (See related excerpt4.)
>
> But Sabine Kleinert, an executive editor at The Lancet, says
> she has never worked with Excerpta Medica and rejects
> articles that have a marketing spin. "Promotion has a
> different goal than publishing a legitimate research study,"
> says Dr. Kleinert. She suspects companies sometimes influence
> medical writers "to write it up in a certain way to make a
> product sound more efficacious than it is."
>
> A 1999 document that turned up in a lawsuit describes
> Pfizer's publications strategy for its antidepressant Zoloft.
> The document, prepared by a unit of ad giant WPP Group,
> includes 81 different articles proposed for journals. They
> would promote the drug's use in conditions from panic
> disorder to pedophilia. (See related excerpt5.)
>
> Author 'to Be Determined'
>
> For some articles, the name of the author was listed as
> "TBD," or "to be determined," even though the article or a
> draft was listed as already completed. Several of the listed
> articles ultimately ran in scientific publications --
> including one in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical
> Association -- without disclosing the role of outside writers.
>
> In a statement responding to questions from The Wall Street
> Journal, Pfizer said agencies sometimes "pull together first
> draft manuscripts"
> based on information provided by researchers who will serve
> as authors. It says the academics who were later given credit
> as lead authors of the "TBD" articles were instrumental in
> designing the studies that the articles described. The lead
> authors said they had input into the drafts and approved the
> final papers.
>
>
> In recent years, more journal editors have begun demanding
> that academic authors of studies explain their exact roles
> and disclose any work by medical writers. The editors say the
> writers can perform a valuable role so long as it's disclosed
> to readers.
>
> Writers agree -- and the American Medical Writers Association
> is pressing for greater acknowledgment of its members' work.
> But some medical writers say they fear articles with full
> disclosure are likely to get bounced.
> Editors "say they want disclosure, but if you do it, they
> scream, 'ghostwriter!' " says Art Gertel, who oversees
> medical writing at Beardsworth Consulting Group in
> Flemington, N.J. "Despite the cries for transparency, the
> journal editors still feel that there's an element of
> corruption if a medical writer is paid by a drug company."
>
> Catherine DeAngelis, JAMA's editor in chief, says even a
> conscientious journal can only go so far in policing
> academics. "I don't give lie- detector tests to people," Dr.
> DeAngelis says.
>
> BMJ, a British medical journal, has one of the toughest
> disclosure policies, but it can get misled. Last year, a note
> at the end of a BMJ article on painkillers and asthma said
> the article was "conceived and initiated" by its three
> academic authors. Lead author Christine Jenkins "performed
> the analysis and drafted the paper," the note said, adding
> that the work wasn't funded by a drug company. Dr. Jenkins is
> a senior researcher at Australia's Woolcock Institute of
> Medical Research, which has ties to the University of Sydney.
> (See related excerpts6.)
>
> In fact, a medical writer paid by GlaxoSmithKline PLC helped
> draft the manuscript, the drug company confirms. The analysis
> was almost identical to an earlier, unpublished one that the
> company says was "initiated" by that writer. Both analyses
> concluded that acetaminophen or Tylenol (sold under a
> different name by GlaxoSmithKline in Britain) was safer for
> asthma patients than aspirin or other painkillers. (See
> related excerpts7.)
>
> Dr. Jenkins qays the structupe of her work was "suggested" by
> the company version but she and the other authors did their
> own analysis. Dr. Jenkins says she personally "wrote a very
> large chunk" of the BMJ article and worked closely with the
> writer. Dr. Jenkins and GlaxoSmithKline declined to give the
> writer's name.
>
> Dr. Jenkins says she didn't know that the company paid the writer.
> GlaxoSmithKline didn't pay Dr. Jenkins for the BMJ article,
> but the company previously paid her to speak at a conference
> and has given a major grant to the Woolcock Institute.
>
> In a statement, GlaxoSmithKline says the paper "should have
> disclosed the involvement of a medical writer compensated by
> GSK." The company says it "regards the omission as a lapse on
> the part of GSK."
>
> Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor, says Dr. Jenkins "should have
> declared the involvement of the medical writer." Dr. Godlee
> says the journal will print papers that involve a medical
> writer, but she believes "the actual authors have to be
> incredibly closely involved."
>
> When articles are ghostwritten by someone paid by a company,
> the big question is whether the article gets slanted. That's
> what one former free- lance medical writer alleges she was
> told to do by a company hired by Johnson & Johnson.
>
> Instruction Sheet
>
> Susanna Dodgson, who holds a doctorate in physiology, says
> she was hired in 2002 by Excerpta Medica, the Elsevier
> medical-communications firm, to write an article about J&J's
> anemia drug Eprex. A J&J unit had sponsored a study measuring
> whether Eprex patients could do well taking the drug only
> once a week. The company was facing competition from a rival
> drug sold by Amgen Inc. that could be given once a week or less.
>
> Dr. Dodgson says she was given an instruction sheet directing
> her to emphasize the "main message of the study" -- that
> 79.3% of people with anemia had done well on a once-a-week
> Eprex dose. In fact, only 63.2% of patients responded well as
> defined by the original study protocol, according to a report
> she was provided. That report said the study's goal "could
> not be reached." Both the instruction sheet and the report
> were viewed by The Wall Street Journal. The higher figure Dr.
> Dodgson was asked to highlight used a broader definition of
> success and excluded patients who dropped out of the trial or
> didn't adhere to all its rules.
>
> The instructions noted that some patients on large doses
> didn't seem to do well with the once-weekly administration
> but warned that this point "has not been discussed with
> marketing and is not definitive!"
>
> The Eprex study appeared last year in the journal Clinical
> Nephrology, highlighting the 79.3% figure without mentioning
> the lower one. The article didn't acknowledge Dr. Dodgson or
> Excerpta Medica. Dr. Dodgson, who now teaches medical writing
> at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, says she
> didn't like the Eprex assignment "but I had to earn a living."
>
> The listed lead author, Paul Barré of McGill University in
> Montreal, says Excerpta Medica did "a lot of the scutwork"
> but he had "complete freedom"
> to change its drafts. Dr. Barré says he helped design the
> study and enroll patients in it. In statements, J&J and
> Excerpta Medica offered similar explanations of the process.
> J&J says it regularly uses outside firms "to expedite the
> development of independent, peer-reviewed publications."
>
> A J&J spokesman said he wasn't familiar with the details of
> the instruction sheet and referred questions about the
> highlighted data to Dr.
> Barré, who said he never interacted with J&J's marketing
> department and doesn't believe the article was biased. He
> said the higher figure was "more representative" because
> those patients followed the study's rules. "Without wanting
> to distort data, you always want to put the spin that's more
> positive for the article," Dr. Barré says. "You're more
> likely to get it published."
>
> Hartmut Malluche, an editor of Clinical Nephrology, declined
> to comment on details of the article. The journal doesn't
> require authors to disclose the role of medical writers. But
> after hearing Dr. Dodgson's story, Dr.
> Malluche said he would suggest changing the policy. "It's not
> good if the company has control over the article," he says.
>
> Some academics are protesting ghostwriting. Adriane
> Fugh-Berman, an associate professor at the Georgetown
> University School of Medicine, says she received an email
> last year from a company hired by drug maker AstraZeneca PLC.
> The email offered her the chance to get credit for writing an
> article. "... [W]e will forward you a draft for your input so
> that you would need only to review and then advise us of any
> changes required," it said.
>
> She says she was shown a draft but declined the offer. Then
> the Journal of General Internal Medicine asked her to
> peer-review a version of the same article, submitted by a
> different researcher. She decided to go public, and wrote
> about her experience in the journal.
>
> AstraZeneca and the communications firm say it was all a
> mistake. Dr. Fugh- Berman should have been shown a different
> article from the one she was later asked to peer-review, they
> say. The article for peer review was in fact written by the
> author who submitted it to the journal, they say.
> AstraZeneca says it "does not support the practice of
> ghostwriting" and always discloses any support it gives to
> academic authors.
>
> John Farrar, a pain expert at the University of Pennsylvania,
> says he once turned down a company's offer to give him a
> ghostwritten draft about a study on which he had worked.
> "They said, 'That's unusual,' " Dr. Farrar recalls. He wanted
> to write the manuscript himself because "you can put your
> spin on it. ...The way it is written -- the way it's
> structured -- is yours."
>
> Write to Anna Wilde Mathews at anna.mathews at wsj.com8
>
>   URL for this article:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113443606745420770.html
>