In Merck published fake journal berichtet Charles Hamaker in liblicense-l über einen unglaublichen Vorwurf an den Pharmagiganten Merck:
The drug company paid Elsevier to produce several volumes of a publication made to look like a peer-reviewed medical journal, with no disclosure of company sponsorship
Aufgedeckt wurde dies u.a. durch Bob Grant im The Scientist (requires registration).
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–most of which presented data favorable to Merck products–that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.
Es geht um zwei Ausgaben von 2003 des Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. Dass Elsevier sich auf Sponsored Publishing verlegt hat, war lange bekannt, aber den Sponsor nicht zu nennen und so zu tun, als ob es peer-reviewed ist, erschüttert nicht nur die Glaubwürdigkeit von Elsevier, sondern des gesamten Verlagswesens. Auf wenn können wir uns noch verlassen, wem können wir vertrauen angesichts der immer häufiger aufgedeckten „Entgegenkommen“ von Zeitschriften gegenüber Pharmaunternehmen?
Elsevier hat mittlerweile den Fehler zugegeben (in FT, aber nicht auf Elsevier.com):
Elsevier, the world’s leading scientific publisher, yesterday said it had failed to meet its own standards for „accuracy and transparency“ in producing a publication sponsored by Merck, the US pharmaceutical group, but presented as an independent academic journal.
Die Kommentare zu dem Merck-Fall liessen nicht lange auf sich warten:
… if that summary is accurate and left out no mitigating details, it is difficult not to be disturbed by this news. What publishers of the old-fashioned variety (meaning enterprises that are built on editorial selection) have going for them is their credibility. This is what distinguishes them from many of the evolving community and peer-to-peer efforts (e.g., Wikipedia). There are business opportunities that must be passed up if they could undermine the credibility of the brand. Not to disclose sponsorship in the current climate is poor judgment. Joe Esposito