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 270: Roundtable on the Bill C-22 Risks for Canadian Tech Companies Featuring VPN Services Tailscale and Windscribe
byMichael Geist

May 25, 2026
Michael Geist
May 11, 2026
Michael Geist
May 4, 2026
Michael Geist
April 27, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
AI for All, Details to Follow: Government Releases a Big-Spending AI Strategy That Is Still Short on the Specifics That Matter
New Privacy Rights in the Morning, Mandatory Metadata Retention in the Afternoon: How Bill C-22 Undercuts the AI Strategy Before It Launches
From Making Web Giants Pay to Making Taxpayers Pay: Government Announces Plan to Kill the CRTC’s Online Streaming Ruling
Digital Self-Sabotage: Why Canada’s AI Strategy Is Set to Fail Before it Even Launches
Why Mark Carney’s Antisemitism Speech Did Not Meet the Moment

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.