Posts about ethics
animals appropriate technology bacteria biology Career Cats cool curiouscat economy Energy Engineering engineering education engineers evolution experiment food fun Funding government green Health Care human health innovation K-12 kids Life Science medical research nature ocean physics Products Research Robots Science science education science explained science facts science webcasts scientific inquiry Students Technology university research USA water webcasts

Merck and Elsevier Publish Phony Peer-Review Journal

Posted on May 3, 2009  Comments (3)

Elsevier is one of those publishers fighting open science. They try to claim that the government publishing government funded research in an open way will tarnish science. The argument makes no sense to me. Here is another crazy action on their part: they published a “journal” funded by Merck to promote Merck products. Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal:

Merck cooked up a phony, but real sounding, peer reviewed journal and published favorably looking data for its products in them. Merck paid Elsevier to publish such a tome, which neither appears in MEDLINE or has a website, according to The Scientist.
…
What’s sad is that I’m sure many a primary care physician was given literature from Merck that said, “As published in Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, Fosamax outperforms all other medications….” Said doctor, or even the average researcher wouldn’t know that the journal is bogus. In fact, knowing that the journal is published by Elsevier gives it credibility!

As I have said the journals fighting open science should have their credibility questioned. They are putting their outdated business model above science. We should not see organizations that are focused on closing science research through deceptive publicity efforts and lobbying efforts as credible.

Related: From Ghost Writing to Ghost Management in Medical Journals – Merck Faked a Research Journal – Medical Study Integrity (or Lack Thereof) – The Future of Scholarly Publication – Fresh questions raised about prominent cardiologist’s role in “ghostwritten” 2001 meta-analysis of Vioxx trials – Science Commons: Making Scientific Research Re-useful – Publishers Continue to Fight Open Access to Science – Misleading or Deceptive Conduct – Peter Suber Response to Rep. Conyers