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 226: Richard Gold on Why Canada Should Target U.S. Patents To Help Counter Tariff Trade Pressure
byMichael Geist

February 10, 2025
Michael Geist
February 3, 2025
Michael Geist
January 27, 2025
Michael Geist
December 9, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
Why the Trump Trade Threats Will Place Canadian Digital, Cultural, and AI Policy Under Pressure
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 226: Richard Gold on Why Canada Should Target U.S. Patents To Help Counter Tariff Trade Pressure
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 225: How Canada Can Leverage Digital Policy to Retaliate Against Trump’s Tariffs
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 224: Why Prorogation and Donald Trump Spell the End of an Era in Canadian Digital Policy
Why Years of Canadian Digital Policy Is Either Dead (Prorogation) or Likely to Die (Trump)
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.