Advertising, Education, Marketing

Elsevier Published Fake Journals

Image via Wikipedia

According to the magazine The Scientist, the publishing giant Elseiver admitted to publishing six fake medical journals between 2000 and 2005.

These “journals” were all sponsored by pharmaceutical companies but lacked proper disclosure of sponsorship. The initial finding, released on April 30 in The Scientist, involved the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, a publication which was paid for by Merck. The publication, complete with an honorary editorial board of academics, was largely a compendium of reprinted articles and reviews from other Elsevier journals that presented data favorable to Merck’s products. All six publications were released in Australia.

Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier’s Health Sciences Division, responded quickly on the company’s website with an apology and reassurance that the practice has ceased, the individuals involved have since left the company, and that the integrity of the publishing process at Elsevier remains intact. Hansen writes:

We have strict disclosure rules in place so that readers are aware of any financial interests behind a specific article or journal, or when entire compilation products are created for pharmaceutical marketing purposes.

However, it’s unlikely that everyone involved has left the company, despite Elsevier’s assurances. Elsevier’s Asia-Pacific region was run at the time by an executive known to have approved all business decisions, exerting tight control over operations.

Despite the intrigue, a more fundamental question exists: Why would this happen? Among the developed countries, only the United States and New Zealand allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.  Perhaps this is part of the rationale for the journal format.  The conspicuous lack of sponsorship along with the staid academic journal format appears intentional for the purposes of creating a semblance of an objective source of medical information.

Following the lawsuit over the drug Vioxx, an article appearing last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that Merck routinely prepared journal manuscripts for publication and subsequently recruited academically affiliated researchers to be the authors (dropping the company scientists in the process). In half of the manuscripts, industry affiliation or support was not disclosed on the manuscripts.

The fake publishing ordeal may have been a lucrative opportunity for Elsevier at the time.  Right now, they appear to be paying the price.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

About Phil Davis

I am an independent researcher and publishing consultant specializing in the statistical analysis of citation, readership and survey data. I am a former postdoctoral researcher in science communication and former science librarian.


12 thoughts on “Elsevier Published Fake Journals

  1. Interesting that the The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) doesn’t address this topic in its recommendations. It speaks at length about what authors need to do about reporting conflicts of interest. It is limited in the responsibilities of the publishers.

    The section about advertising (III.H. Advertising) is fairly explicit about a “chinese wall” between content and advertising. In this case, they did a poor job of segmenting the two. How can one separate the ads from the content when the content ARE the ads?


    Posted by Todd Carpenter | May 11, 2009, 7:57 am


  1. Pingback: Elsevier Update « USF Library - May 8, 2009

  2. Pingback: Elsevier Published Fake Journals « rookie librarian - May 10, 2009

  3. Pingback: A Fake Scientific Literature « Thoughts of a Neo-Academic - May 18, 2009

  4. Pingback: Lending Credibility to Fake Journals « The Scholarly Kitchen - Jun 3, 2009

  5. Pingback: Elsevier Merck Admit Publishing Fake Journals @ e-Book Reader News - Jun 4, 2009

  6. Pingback: El lado oscuro de la publicación científica | Bibliotecas Hospitalarias - Jul 26, 2009

  7. Pingback: L’”erreur” d’Elsevier… « pintiniblog - Dec 27, 2009

  8. Pingback: Controversial Math Journal Relauches: New Editors, Focus on Rigorous Review « The Scholarly Kitchen - Mar 18, 2010

  9. Pingback: Physician, Heal Thyself: Medical Ghostwriting Uncovered in a Clinical Textbook « The Scholarly Kitchen - Dec 6, 2010

  10. Pingback: “Predatory” Open Access Publishers — The Natural Extreme of an Author-Pays Model « The Scholarly Kitchen - Mar 6, 2012

  11. Pingback: Where There’s Smoke — Is Sponsorship of Open Access Author Fees a New Type of Conflict of Interest? « The Scholarly Kitchen - May 2, 2012

The Scholarly Kitchen on Twitter

Find Posts by Category

Find Posts by Date

May 2009
« Apr   Jun »
The mission of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) is "[t]o advance scholarly publishing and communication, and the professional development of its members through education, collaboration, and networking." SSP established The Scholarly Kitchen blog in February 2008 to keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new developments in publishing.
The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and independent blog. Opinions on The Scholarly Kitchen are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those held by the Society for Scholarly Publishing nor by their respective employers.
%d bloggers like this: