Multiple sources are pointing to a new report that Merck paid Elsevier, a leading publisher, to produce several volumes of the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which appeared to be a peer-reviewed journal, but was really little more than marketing material for the pharmaceutical company.
Merck and Elsevier Published Fake Journal
May 4, 2009
Share this post
2 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 232: What Will Canadian Digital Policy Look Like Under the New Liberal Carney Government?
byMichael Geist

May 5, 2025
Michael Geist
March 31, 2025
Michael Geist
March 24, 2025
Michael Geist
March 10, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
When the Drumbeat of Intolerance Becomes Too Loud to Ignore: Reflections on Campus Antisemitism, Academic Freedom and My Global Technology Law Exchange Course
Solomon’s Choice: Charting the Future of AI Policy in Canada
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 232: What Will Canadian Digital Policy Look Like Under the New Liberal Carney Government?
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 231: Sara Bannerman on How Canadian Political Parties Maximize Voter Data Collection and Minimize Privacy Safeguards
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 230: Aengus Bridgman on the 2025 Federal Election, Social Media Platforms, and Misinformation
And educational institutions subscribe to Elsevier ScienceDirect
1. Publish a fake journal with Elsevier and the like
2. Make educational institurions subscribe to Elsevier and the like
3. Tie university professors with Big Pharma
4. PROFIT!
Regarding [3], visit http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/523/9/
Harvard Medical Students Rebel Against Big Pharma
“The students say they worry that pharmaceutical industry scandals in recent years – including some criminal convictions, billions of dollars in fines, proof of bias in research and publishing and false marketing claims – have cast a bad light on the medical profession. And they criticize Harvard as being less vigilant than other leading medical schools in monitoring potential financial conflicts by faculty members.”
Marketing material, yes, but…
The info that the publication was paid for by Merck could be inferred, if you took the time. In the item pointed to, the ONLY advertisements were from Merck (at least that was the only ones that I noticed).
However, I’d agree that it should have been specifically mentioned. Sort of like the “Medi-Facts” commercials airing these days.