JAMA 1994; 271:1904. It is especially concerning that this was a review article because available negative data about the drug could be withheld, and only positive references to the use of the drug in this particular situation could be included. The unanimous 12-member jury found that Mr. Johnson's exposure to Monsanto's weedkiller was a "substantial" contributing factor to his disease and that there was "clear and convincing" evidence that Monsanto acted with "malice or oppression" because the risks were evident and Monsanto failed to warn of those known risks. If so, please send any revisions to me by Friday, September 6th. N Engl J Med 1993; 329:570-1. N Engl J Med 1993; 329:573-6. Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, Department of Anesthesiology, St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, 736 Cambridge Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02135–2997. But the evidence of ghostwriting and misconduct have far broader implications than one lawsuit. Why has there been no retraction, no clarification, no correction to the obviously deceptive disclosure? Lancet 1993; 342:1498-9. Academic Ghost Writing The essence of academic writing and that of the ghost writer’s skill is found in research and the intuitive nature of discovery and investigation. Other edits show Heydens attempting to control the tone of the manuscript, stating: "The deleted statement below has nothing to do with IARC criticism and should be put back in, John over-stepped the bounds here" and "I can live with deleting the text below, assuming that exposure text above … is added back in." ___ will pay you $1000 for authoring this article. By managing the publication of articles about their products, it is easier for drug companies to spread positive results and bury negative results. Shortly thereafter the Center for Biological Diversity and three other national environmental-health organizations sent a letter to CRT and Taylor & Francis detailing the ethical misconduct and formally asking for a retraction. They then asked an anesthesiologist to give the article a cursory review, modify it as he or she saw fit, and attach his or her name to the article for which they would pay the anesthesiologist 1,000 dollars. Not only is it apparent that the idea for the manuscript was not generated by the anesthesiologist who was asked to sign his or her name to the article, but the work involved in researching the subject matter, writing the article, and supporting the material with bibliographic citations was performed by the ghostwriter. One of Monsanto's top scientists not only reviewed the manuscripts but had a hand in drafting and editing them. All rights reserved. The involvement of the junior scientists is not typically disclosed to the journal, so editors work under the impression that the invited reviewer developed and wrote the resulting manuscript review themselves. While you can advertise as a ghostwriter through bios on blogs or articles or by placing ads or running a website, you’re still essentially an invisible commodity. It is important to notify the anesthesia community that the practice of ghostwriting articles is unacceptable. Transparency advocates say ghost-writing has become commonplace because it provides substantial benefits to three parties: drug companies, researchers and medical journals. They suggest that journal editors codify mechanisms for disclosing and crediting the contributions of noninvited reviewers, who are often members of the invited reviewer’s lab. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:1055-6. This site uses cookies. Whether co-reviewers are named or not, this practice, along with the more patently unethical ghostwriting, has no defensible place in the live arena of academic publishing. College and university faculty simply need to start teaching it and following it themselves. Ghostwriting and co-review completely violate the professional ethics of this contract. When the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (CRT) published a series of papers reviewing the carcinogenic potential of weed-killing agent glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, in September 2016, the findings were so significant that they were widely reported by media outlets around the world. The internal documents speak of "ghost-writing" strategies aimed at using non-company scientists as authors to lend credibility to the findings. Professionals who do not take precautions to avoid conflicts of interest or who do not observe rules regulating such conflicts and their disclosures are considered to have acted unethically. He said he did not "recall" whether or not he made the 28 edits that plaintiffs' attorneys counted in the internal records. Angell M, Kassirer JP: Editorials and conflicts of interest. "This is not inflammatory, it is descriptive," he wrote. The full text of the letter, minus any identifiers, is reproduced herein: Thank you for agreeing to review the enclosed article titled ___. Search for other works by this author on: Brennan TA: Buying editorials. Sixteen scientists from "four independent panels" signed their names to the published work, declaring to readers that their conclusions were free of Monsanto's intervention. Another related problem is that although physicians can advocate unproven indications for approved drugs, drug companies cannot do so. In a strict sense, co-reviewing happens when a trainee is involved in developing and writing the review and their contribution is disclosed to journal editors. Copyright 1997 by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc. SUBSCRIBE TO EHN'S MUST-READ DAILY NEWSLETTER: ABOVE THE FOLD, Monsanto's ghostwriting and strong-arming threaten sound science ... ›, Climate change will continue to widen gaps in food security, new study finds, The chemical BPA is widespread on beaches around the world, Microplastics in farm soils: A growing concern, Why environmental justice needs to be on the docket in the presidential debates: Derrick Z. Jackson. Please feel free to take complete editorial control, adding, changing, or deleting whatever you feel is necessary. How many ghostwritten papers declaring pesticide safety are littering the scientific literature? The authors of the 2016 review found that the weight of evidence showed the weed killer was unlikely to pose any carcinogenic risk to people. All of this was among the evidence presented to jurors in San Francisco Superior Court as they considered Johnson's claims. Taylor & Francis must determine the standards to which it is willing to hold scientists who publish in its journals – if not for the reputation of the journals themselves, then for the sake of scientific integrity itself and the public's right to the truth. If you have any questions, please call. Thompson DF: Understanding financial conflicts of interest. [1–3]. Both ghostwriting and co-reviewing can also have the effect of denying trainees credit for the work they have contributed. We will make these changes and return a manuscript, styled according to the journal's guidelines, for you to submit. It's been more than a year since this investigation was begun and, despite multiple follow-up requests by the organizations, no action has been taken. It has since become evident that these papers were anything but independent. He also argued for putting a deleted phrase back in because it gave "clarity about IARC's approach." Underscoring the supposed independence of the work, the declaration of interest section stated: "Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel's manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.". Most journals provide reviewers with detailed instructions for the desired content and format of manuscript reviews. © 1986–2020 The Scientist. Anesthesiology 1997; 87:195–196 doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199708000-00001, The relationship between pharmaceutical companies and their intermediary publishing or communication organizations and scientific journals can be a most satisfactory one, or it can arouse great ire and passion. Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, Department of Anesthesiology, St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, 736 Cambridge Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02135–2997. Often in academia, ethical conduct is taught but not practiced. In this professional context, journal publications are major forces in determining academic career success, supporting the livelihoods of researchers, influencing government policy, furthering research funding, advancing scientific and medical progress, and supporting the academic enterprise. They recommend ending the practice of ghostwriting and crafting more-substantive guidelines around co-reviewing. The eLife paper authors rightly advise that something needs to be done about these aspects of peer review in the interest of improving the quality of academia. Recently, I was shown a letter written to an academic anesthesiologist that seriously undermines the integrity of the publication process as it applies to scientific peer-reviewed journals. The eLife paper shows that the scientific community is ready for this change. The finished papers were aimed directly at discrediting IARC's classification. Kassirer JP, Angell M: Financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. Ghost with a chance in publishing undergrowth. The findings were critical to Monsanto – the company was facing doubts by European regulators about allowing glyphosate to remain on the market. Therefore, if drug companies can get physicians to write about new and unapproved uses of their drug, they can legally distribute these “scientific” articles to other physicians, thus encouraging and expanding the unapproved use of approved drugs. But arguing that co-reviewing is acceptable because it trains ECRs to be better manuscript reviewers is a convenient rationalization to excuse a similarly unethical practice. Another article focusing on ghostwriting viewed ethics from the point of view of publishers (Stichler, 2014). Nathan Donley, Ph.D, is a former cancer researcher who now works as senior scientist in the Center for Biological Diversity's environmental health program. On November 4, 2019, The Scientist ran a revealing Q&A highlighting a recent survey published in eLife. Researchers say that more microplastics pollution is getting into farm soil than oceans—and these tiny bits are showing up in our fruits, veggies, and bodies. ___ will obtain permission from the publishers to use borrowed figures/graphics. JAMA 1994; 272:1253-4. Kasper CD: Letter to the editor. Before starting Asymmetrex, he spent more than 20 years as a principal investigator leading laboratory research programs in cancer center, independent research institute, and research university settings. Authorship! The implications are clear. Serious and highly publicized conflicts of interest have recently surfaced regarding the influence of drug companies on editorial content. It is interesting that the survey in the eLife paper did not list graduate classes as a response choice for where respondents had obtained training for reviewing manuscripts, though the authors did propose the introduction of compulsory teaching of manuscript reviewing in graduate courses. Nitrous Oxide–related Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Depends on Duration of Exposure, Efficacy, Dose-Response, and Safety of Ondansetron in Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting : A Quantitative Systematic Review of Randomized Placebo-controlled Trials, © Copyright 2020 American Society of Anesthesiologists. Countries already struggling with low crop yields will be hurt most by a warming climate. Beary, [8] representing the Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America, acknowledged that honoraria received to support writing review articles should be disclosed as part of the biomedical publishing process and is “consistent with the general practice of disclosure so that readers can effectively evaluate information. [9] Further, to pay an academician for allowing his or her name to be used without disclosing the source of the honorarium or those who actually wrote the paper is inimical to the integrity of scientific publications and should not be tolerated. Whether co-reviewers are named or not, this practice, along with the more patently unethical ghostwriting, has no defensible place in the live arena of academic publishing. When placed under oath in a deposition, Heydens acknowledged that the manuscripts were sent to him and he read "parts of some of them," prior to their submission to the journal. Opinion: Postdocs as Competent Peer Reviewers, New Journal to Publish Reviews of COVID-19 Preprints, Trainees Often Ghostwrite PI’s Peer Reviews: Survey. Each project is differ ... news articles but mostly journals written by expert academics in the field of choice. David J. Cullen; Ghostwriting in Scientific Anesthesia Journals . Brennan [1] addressed an analogous issue in 1994 when he criticized the practice of pharmaceutical companies paying substantial amounts of money to prominent academicians to assign their names to an editorial that commented on original research published in the same issue. Having inexperienced reviewers usher manuscripts through the essential process of peer review is a disservice to submitting authors. Representatives of a drug company or its intermediary communication's company wrote or obtained a review article promoting the specific use of the company's drug. The internal documents speak of "ghost-writing" strategies aimed at using non-company scientists as authors to lend credibility to the findings. [1]. Some of the points which Stichler outlines are a clear dissemination of data throughout the entirety of the What they do not do, and should not be expected to do, is teach reviewers how to evaluate and judge the significance of manuscripts, their technical quality, the soundness of their arguments and conclusions, the integrity of their conduct, and their overall scientific value. And given the evidence of misconduct in this instance, why are these papers still in publication? Heydens went so far as to state: "I would ignore John's comment" and "I don't see a reason for deleting the text that John did below.". Witt MD, Gostin LO: More conflicts of interest: Review articles sponsored by pharmaceutical industry. Peer-reviewed journals such as Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) serve a critical service by providing a medium for such discourse. According to the study, responding authors reported a 10.9 percent rate of ghostwriting in The New England Journal of Medicine, the highest rate among the journals. Preclinical Pain Research: Can We Do Better? But one interaction is worth revisiting. If a drug company wants the work of their employees to be considered for publication, I have no objection to the drug company's authors submitting an article with appropriate disclosure of financial or commercial conflicts of interest. Many physicians either don't have the time to write major journal articles or are not good enough writers to have an article appear in a medical journal and therefore ghostwriting is a great way for them to get their names in print and support the findings of research. The importance of the papers to Monsanto as a tool to counter IARC's classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen was laid out in a confidential document dated May 11, 2015, naming several of the scientists who could be used as authors to give the papers credibility. But in my experience, the involvement of co-reviewers is sometimes not disclosed to the journals, just as is the case with ghostwriters. James L. Sherley is the founder and current director of Asymmetrex LLC, a company focused on developing adult tissue stem cell technologies and applying them to clinical drug discovery and cellular medicine. As well, Monsanto was facing a growing mass of lawsuits claiming its weed killer caused people to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. [4] In 1993, the New England Journal of Medicine decided not to publish review articles or editorials by authors with financial holdings in a company or its competitor whose product figures prominently in the article. It is simple; we need to begin teaching ethical manuscript review as a core principle of academic life and responsibility. In this way, interested and properly trained ECRs can begin to establish their own credentials in the eyes of journal editors with appropriate instruction and guidance, without compromising the integrity of the journal manuscript review process and of academia as a whole. The article may not have been written by an objective independent practitioner but by an unnamed source working for the drug company whose job it was to use this drug in a new setting, thereby enlarging the drug's market. The primary reason for this is a well-known (and, in ghostwriting, a much-coveted) aspect of marketing called referrals. Brennan advocated improving disclosure because conflicts of interest will remain with us but should be better managed. [2] In 1985, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), also known as the “Vancouver Group,” adopted methods to attempt to eliminate, among other problems, honorary authors. Responses from early career researchers (ECRs) and other scientists drew attention to a widespread, unethical practice to which academic scientists have too long resigned themselves—peer review ghostwriting (8:e48425, 2019). And this essential aspect of a scientist’s education needs to be complemented with an emphasis on proper ethical conduct in journal manuscript review. When confronted with the high rates of ghostwriting in the NEJM, the highest among all of the journals, a spokesperson for the journal said she was “completely shocked.” Half of Medical Literature Hides Dangerous Side Effects The papers, published in a special issue of CRT entitled "An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate," directly contradicted the findings of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which in 2015 found glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen. More than one in 10 articles published in the NEJM were written with help from a ghostwriter. Monsanto's fingerprints are all over this "independent" review, as laid out in Monsanto's own internal documents. Co-reviewing, even when trainee reviewers have been named and credited, has the potential to harm the careers of the scientists who submitted the manuscript under review in the event that poorly informed, deficient reviews result in rejections of papers that are crucial to obtaining research funds, academic promotion, professional reputation, salary compensation, and so on.
Ielts Writing Task 2 Vocabulary Research,
Acc Video Editing Essay,
How To Write Poetry Research,
What Was Adam Smith's Purpose In Writing The Wealth Of Nations? Research,
Describe A Time When A Family Member Asked For Your Help Coursework,