Article information
Abstract
Introduction
Relationship between ghost-authors and medical writers has been debated, even arriving to citizens. Accusation that through ghost-authors, market messages are introduced in medical journals has been suggested.
DevelopmentThis paper carried out an analysis of ghost-authors and their application to medical writers and discusses the intellectual authorship of the scientific articles, as well as the relationship with research groups and pharmaceutical industry, as well as the position of journal.
ConclusionsThe role of medical workers is advisable because improves communication of articles. Using authorship criteria, medical writers cannot be considered as ghostauthors. Misconducts for medical writers should be pursued but also those from editors and authors. Responsibility of articles belongs to authors who are responsible of false conclusions obtained from data research and to the editor in the case of the paper was published.
Keywords:
Medical journals
Editors
Authors
Ghost-author
Ghost-writers
Medical writers
Pharmaceutical industry
Resumen
Introducción
La relación entre la autoría fantasma y los redactores profesionales de artículos médicos ha estado en el debate, llegando incluso al ciudadano. La acusación que, a través de la autoria-fantasma, se introducen mensajes de mercado también ha sido publicada por algunas revistas científicas.
DesarrolloSe realiza un análisis del concepto de autoría-fantasma y su aplicación a los redactores profesionales y se discute la responsabilidad intelectual de los artículos científicos, así como la relación en grupos de investigación e industria farmacéutica, así como la posición de la revista.
ConclusionesLa labor de los redactores profesionales es recomendable para mejor la comunicación del artículo. Utilizando los criterios de autoría, los redactores profesionales no pueden ser considerados como autores-fantasma. Deben perseguirse las malas conductas no solo de redactores profesionales sino también de editores y autores. La responsabilidad de los artículos pertenece a los autores, que son quienes la incumple si existen aseveraciones que no corresponden a los datos de los artículos, así como al editor que aparezcan publicados.
Palabras clave:
Publicaciones médicas
Editores
Autoría
Autoría-fantasma
Redacción fantasma
Redactores profesionales
Industria farmacéutica
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1.]
A.J. Fugh-Berman.
The haunting of medical journals: how ghostwriting sold “HRT”.
PLoS Med, 9 (2010), pp. e1000335
[2.]
C. Laine, C.D. Mulrow.
Exorcising ghosts and unwelcome guests.
Ann Intern Med, 143 (2005), pp. 611-612
[4.]
B. Moffatt, C. Elliott.
Ghost marketing: pharmaceutical companies and ghostwritten journal articles.
Perspect Biol Med, 50 (2007), pp. 18-31
[5.]
J.S. Ross, K.P. Hill, D.S. Egilman, H.M. Krumholz.
Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation.
JAMA, 299 (2008), pp. 1800-1812
[6.]
C.D. DeAngelis, P.B. Fontanarosa.
Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence.
JAMA, 299 (2008), pp. 1833-1835
[7.]
M. Lagnado.
Increasing the trust in scientific authorship.
Br J Psychiatry, 183 (2003), pp. 3-4
[8.]
J.C. Bevan.
Ethical behaviour of authors in biomedical journalism.
Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can, 35 (2002), pp. 81-85
[9.]
T. Bodenheimer.
Uneasy alliance — clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry.
N Engl J Med, 342 (2000), pp. 1539-1544
[10.]
K.A. Schulman, D.M. Seils, J.W. Timbie, J. Sugarman, L.A. Dame, K.P. Weinfurt, et al.
A national survey of provisions in clinicaltrial agreements between medical schools and industry sponsors.
N Engl J Med, 347 (2002), pp. 1335-1341
[11.]
S.A. Halperin, D. Scheifele, B. Duval, B. Ward.
Conforming to ICMJE principles.
CMAJ, 173 (2005), pp. 1358-1359
[12.]
A. Fugh-Berman.
The corporate coauthor.
J Gen Intern Med, 20 (2005), pp. 546-548
[13.]
F.J. S Matias-Guiu, F.R. S Garcia-Ramos.
Sesgos en la edición de las publicaciones científicas.
Neurologia, (2011),
[14.]
S.S. Daskalopoulou, D.P. Mikhailidis.
The involvement of professional medical writers in medical publications.
Curr Med Res Opin, 21 (2005), pp. 307-310
[16.]
CBE.
Who is an author?.
Science Editor, 23 (2000), pp. 111
[17.]
M. Angell.
The pharmaceutical industry — to whom is it accountable?.
N Engl J Med., 342 (2000), pp. 1902-1904
[18.]
D. Healy, D. Cattell.
Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics.
Br J Psych, 183 (2003), pp. 22
[19.]
B. Djulbegovic, M. Lacevic, A. Cantor, K.K. Fields, C.L. Bennett, J.R. Adams, et al.
The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research.
Lancet, 356 (2000), pp. 635-638
[20.]
S. Ngai, J.L. Gold, S.S. Gill, P.A. Rochon.
Haunted manuscripts: ghost authorship in the medical literature.
Account Res, 12 (2005), pp. 103-114
[21.]
A. Fugh-Berman, S. Dodgson.
The ethics of publication planning in the pharmaceutical industry.
Open Medicine, 02 (2008), pp. 33-36
[22.]
A. Fugh-Berman, D. Melnick.
Off-label promotion, on-target sales.
PLoS Med, 5 (2008), pp. 210
[23.]
S. Sismondo.
Ghost management: how much of the medical literature is shaped behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical industry?.
PLoS Med, 4 (2007), pp. 286
[24.]
A. Jacobs.
Transparency and trust: in defence of medical writers.
BMJ, 329 (2004), pp. 1345
[25.]
C.W. Hamilton.
Don’t get spooked! How to collaborate with a professional medical communicator (and avoid ghostwriting).
Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz), 58 (2010), pp. 255-261
[26.]
A. Jacobs, J. Carpenter, J. Donnelly, J.F. Klapproth, A. Gertel, G. Hall, et al.
The involvement of professional medical writers in medical publications: results of a Delphi study.
Curr Med Res Opin, 21 (2005), pp. 311-316
[27.]
K. Shashok.
Content and communication: how can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?.
BMC Med Res Methodol, 31 (2008), pp. 3
[28.]
K. Shashok.
Responsabilidades compartidas en la revisión de los originales por expertos.
Rev Neurol, 148 (1997), pp. 1946-1950
[29.]
J. Matías-Guiu, E. Moral, R. García-Ramos, E. Martínez-Vila.
The profile of evaluators of a medical publication in relation to the response.
Neurologia, 25 (2010), pp. 530-535
[30.]
J. Matias-Guiu, R. García-Ramos.
El proceso de mejora y decisión de un artículo.
Neurologia, 24 (2009), pp. 353-358
[31.]
K. Shashok.
Author's editors: facilitators of science information transfer.
Learned Publishing, 14 (2001), pp. 113-121
[32.]
J. Hartley, A. Branthwaite, F. Ganier, L. Heurley.
Lost in translation: Contributions of editors to the meanings of text.
J Information Sci, 33 (2007), pp. 551-565
[34.]
P. Freeman, A. Robbins.
The publishing gap between rich and poor: the focus of Author aid.
J Public Health Policy, 27 (2006), pp. 196-203
[35.]
P.C. Gøtzsche, J.P. Kassirer, K.L. Woolley, E. Wager, A. Jacobs, A. Gertel, et al.
What should be done to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature?.
PLoS Med, 06 (2009), pp. 23
[36.]
R. Norris, A. Bowman, J.M. Fagan, E.R. Gallagher, A.B. Geraci, A. Gertel, et al.
International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) position statement: the role of the professional medical writer.
Curr Med Res Opin, 23 (2007), pp. 1837-1840
[37.]
J. Matias-Guiu, R. García-Ramos.
Fraude y conductas inapropiadas en las publicaciones científicas.
Neurologia, 25 (2010), pp. 1-4
[39.]
K. Shahok, A. Jacobs.
Who's watching whose ethics? Slanted reportig of the medical writer's role in the Neuropsychopharmacology- Ciberonics Case 1.
The Write Stuff, 16 (2007), pp. 1-3
[40.]
A. Jacobs, E. Wager.
European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications.
Curr Med Res Opin, 21 (2005), pp. 317-322
[41.]
E. Wager, E.A. Field, L. Grossman.
Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies.
Curr Med Res Opin, 19 (2003), pp. 149-154
[42.]
A. Fugh-Berman, A.R. Scialli.
Gynecologists and estrogen: an affair of the heart.
Perspect Biol Med, 49 (2006), pp. 115-130
[43.]
S.A. Dowsett, L.E. Van Campen, L.A. Bednar.
Developing good scientific publishing practices: one pharmaceutical company's perspective.
Curr Med Res Opin, 26 (2010), pp. 1249-1254
[44.]
P.C. Gøtzsche, A. Hróbjartsson, H.K. Johansen, M.T. Haahr, D.G. Altman, A.W. Chan.
Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials.
PLoS Med, 4 (2007), pp. e535
[45.]
E. Wager.
Authors, ghosts, damned lies, and statisticians.
PLoS Med, 4 (2007), pp. e34
[46.]
J.R. Lacasse, J. Leo.
Ghostwriting at elite academic medical centers in the United States.
Plos Med, 7 (2010), pp. e1000230
[47.]
A. Górski, S. Letkiewicz.
“Medical writing” and ghostwriting as ethical challenges in medical communication.
Transplant Proc, 42 (2010), pp. 3335-3337
[48.]
L. McHenry, J. Jureidini.
Industry-Sponsored Ghostwriting in Clinical Trial Reporting: A Case Study.
Accountability Res, 15 (2008), pp. 152-167
[49.]
C.S. Landefeld, M.A. Steinman.
The Neurontin legacy - marketing through misinformation and manipulation.
NEJM, 360 (2009), pp. 103-105
[50.]
S. Sismondo.
Ghosts in the machine: publication planning in the medical sciences.
Soc Stud Sci, 39 (2009), pp. 171-198
[51.]
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Available from: www.icmje.org.
[52.]
W.C. Peh, K.H. Ng.
Authorship and acknowledgements.
Singapore Med J, 50 (2009), pp. 563-565
[53.]
J. Matías-Guiu, R. García-Ramos.
Autor y autoría en las publicaciones médicas.
Neurología, 24 (2009), pp. 1-6
[54.]
H.Y. Schultz, E. Blalock.
Transparency is the key to the relationship between biomedical journals and medical writers.
Invest Dermatol, 127 (2007), pp. 735-737
[55.]
J. Garrow, M. Butterfield, J. Marshall, A. Williamson.
The reported training and experience of editors in chief of specialist clinical medical journals.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 286-287
[56.]
J. Matías-Guiu, R. García-Ramos.
Independencia editorial.
Neurologia, 25 (2010), pp. 339-342
[57.]
J. Matías-Guiu, R. García-Ramos.
El factor de impacto y las decisiones editoriales.
Neurología, 23 (2008), pp. 342-348
[59.]
C. Urbano.
El análisis de citas de trabajos de investigadores como método para el estudio del uso de información en bibliotecas.
An Docum, 4 (2001), pp. 243-266
[60.]
N. Vivas, F. Bosch.
Análisis bibliométrico de la actividad investigadora de la industria farmacéutica española.
Farm Clin, 8 (1991), pp. 768-776
Copyright © 2011. Sociedad Española de Neurología
