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
2 Comments
Recent Posts
Canada’s DST Debacle a Case Study of Digital Strategy Trouble 
Canadian Government Caves on Digital Services Tax After Years of Dismissing the Risks of Trade Retaliation 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 238: David Fraser on Why Bill C-2’s Lawful Access Powers May Put Canadians’ Digital Security At Risk 
Ignoring the Warning Signs: Why Did the Canadian Government Dismiss the Trade Risks of a Digital Services Tax? 
Why Bill C-2 Faces a Likely Constitutional Challenge By Placing Solicitor-Client Privilege at Risk
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.