Ghostwriting in biomedicine: a review of the published literature

DeTora, Lisa; Carey, Michelle A.; Toroser, Dikran; Baum, Ellen Z.

doi:10.1080/03007995.2019.1608101

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Другая проблема, которую рецензенты часто не улавливают: статья, написанная за кого-то,процесс разработки компаниями статьи для ученых, которые затем публикуют их в журналах, иногда с небольшими изменениями [46,47]. Эти исследования могут быть использованы в политических, нормативных и маркетинговых целях.…”

Section: тема 3 доказывает ли одобрение рецензента что вы можете доunclassified

Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: тема 3 доказывает ли одобрение рецензента что вы можете доunclassified

Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is possible that the higher PMW rates noted here are due to increased rates of writing assistance disclosure since 2006, as advocated for by professional writing societies. Yet, it is noteworthy that disclosure is still not universally mandated, and our findings may still underestimate the true extent of PMW usage [6]. Alternatively, higher use of PMWs in the present study may reflect a greater proportion of industry‐sponsored oncology trials in general [7].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Professional Medical Writer Assistance in Oncology Clinical Trials

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The use of professional medical writers (PMWs) has been historically low, but contemporary data regarding PMW usage are scarce. In this study, we sought to quantify PMW use in oncologic phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We performed a database query through http://ClinicalTrials.gov to identify cancer‐specific phase III RCTs; we then identified whether a PMW was involved in writing the associated trial manuscript reporting primary endpoint results. Results Two‐hundred sixty trials of 600 (43.3%) used a PMW. Industry‐funded trials used PMWs more often than nonindustry trials (54.9% vs. 3.0%, p < .001). Increased PMW usage was further noted among trials meeting their primary endpoint (53.4% vs. 32.9%, p < .001) and trials that led to subsequent Food and Drug Administration approval (63.1% vs. 36.3%, p < .001). By treatment interventions, PMW use was highest among systemic therapy trials (50.2%). Lastly, the use of PMWs increased significantly over time (odds ratio: 1.11/year, p = .001). Conclusion PMW use rates are high among industry‐funded trials. We urge continued and increased transparency in reporting the funding and use of PMWs.

show abstract

“…Another problem that peer review often fails to catch is ghostwriting, a process by which companies draft articles for academics who then publish them in journals, sometimes with little or no changes [46,47]. These studies can then be used for political, regulatory and marketing purposes.…”

Section: Topicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While Scopus is larger and geographically broader than WoS, it still only covers a fraction of journal publishing outside North America and Europe. For example, it reports a coverage of over 2000 journals in Asia ("230% more than the nearest competitor") 46 , which may seem impressive until you consider that in Indonesia alone there are more than 7000 journals listed on the government's Garuda portal 47 (of which more than 1300 are currently listed on DOAJ) 48 ; while at least 2500 Japanese journals listed on the J-Stage platform 49 . Similarly, Scopus claims to have about 700 journals listed from Latin America, in comparison with SciELO's 1285 active journal count 50 ; but that is just the tip of the iceberg judging by the 1300+ DOAJ-listed journals in Brazil alone 51 .…”

Section: Topic 9: Are Web Of Science and Scopus Global Platforms Of Kmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The changing world of scholarly communication and the emerging new wave of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly debated topics. Evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. This article aims to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices, and policies. We address issues around preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, predatory publishers, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases. These arguments and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and will inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system.

show abstract

Ghostwriting in biomedicine: a review of the published literature

Cited by 19 publications

References 57 publications

Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing

Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing

Professional Medical Writer Assistance in Oncology Clinical Trials

Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About