Medical Ghost-Writing

Langdon-Neuner, Elise

doi:10.4103/0973-1229.33006

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wooley et al, 2006). 4 As a matter of fact, Langdon-Neuner (2008) reckons that ACKs are the solution to the problem of ghostwriting. Her argument is that authors are not only responsible for the content of their papers but also for acknowledging any assistance they received while conducting their research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Backstage solidarity” in Spanish‐ and English‐written medical research papers: Publication context and the acknowledgment paratext

Salager‐Meyer

Ariza

Berbesí

2008

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Venezuela, Spain and the United States of America. We thus randomly selected 150 research papers from leading medical journals in each country. The frequency and length of ACKs, the number of named and unnamed acknowledgees, the reasons why they were acknowledged, the number of grants received and the sources of funding were recorded.The motivations that underpinned each ACK were classified according to Cronin's (1995) and Giles and Councill's (2004) typology. Results were analyzed by means of Chi-square tests. Our results show that ACKs from the English-language corpus are significantly more frequent and longer than those from both the Spanish and Venezuelan 2 samples. The number of persons acknowledged and of grants received was also significantly greater in the US sample than in the two Spanish-language corpora.Differences were found in the number and types of funding sources. Moreover, in the three corpora technical/instrumental assistance was more frequently acknowledged than peers' ideational input. A small-scale ethnographic research was conducted with Spanish and Venezuelan researchers in order to get first-hand feedback on the motivations that could lie behind their ACK behavior. We conclude that "backstage solidarity" (Goffman 1959, cited in Cronin and Franks 2006) significantly differs from one context to another and that the communicative and socio-cultural conventions of academic contributorship are not only discipline-dependent but also language-and context-dependent.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Backstage solidarity” in Spanish‐ and English‐written medical research papers: Publication context and the acknowledgment paratext

Salager‐Meyer

Ariza

Berbesí

2008

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ghost authorship exists if individuals writing the trial protocol, performing the statistical analysis or writing the manuscript are neither listed as authors nor acknowledged in the manuscript. In a study comparing clinical trial protocols provided by an ethics committee with corresponding publications reporting the results in medical journals, ghost authorship for 33 of 44 trials was identified [75]. In what follows, clinicians—owing their professional career to research grants from a manufacturer and/or to high-impact publications written by ghostwriters—are promoting new treatments or products supported by the industry as important innovations [67].…”

Section: Proposal To Link Different Typologies Of Corruptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual and Institutional Corruption in European and US Healthcare: Overview and Link of Various Corruption Typologies

Sommersguter-Reichmann

Wild

Stepan³

et al. 2018

Appl Health Econ Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the fight against healthcare corruption has intensified. Estimates from the European Healthcare Fraud and Corruption Network calculate an approximate €56 billion annual loss to Europe as a result of corruption. To promote understanding of the complexity and interconnection of corrupt activities, we aim to present healthcare-related corruption typologies of the European Union and European Healthcare Fraud and Corruption Network. We subsequently link them to the typology of individual and institutional corruption introduced by Dennis Thompson in the context of investigating misconduct of US Congressional members. According to Thompson, individual corruption is the personal gain of individuals performing duties within an institution in exchange for nurturing private interests, while institutional corruption pertains to the failure of the institution in directing the individual’s behaviour towards the achievement of the institution’s primary purpose because the institutional design promotes the pursuit of individual goals. Effective anti-corruption activities not only require the enactment of anti-corruption laws but also the monitoring and, where appropriate, revision of institutional frameworks to prevent the undermining of the primary purposes of health systems or institutions. To gain further understanding of the similarities and differences of the three typologies, prime examples of corrupt activities in the health sector in the European Union and USA (along with their potential remedies) are provided. Linking corruption cases to Thompson’s typology revealed that many corrupt activities may show elements of both individual and institutional corruption because they are intertwined, partly overlap and may occur jointly. Hence, sanctioning individual actors only does not target the problem.

show abstract

“…If their contribution does not qualify them to be authors, they should be adequately acknowledged in the Acknowledgement or the Contributors sections (11,12). …”

Section: The Authorship Dilemmamentioning

confidence: 99%

Hiring a professional medical writer: is it equivalent to ghostwriting?

Das¹,

Das

2014

Biochem Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Authors of articles published in medical journals are often busy researchers who cannot afford time devoted to writing. Though they are experts in their own therapeutic area, more often than not, researchers find it difficult to actually write and publish their research. Professional medical writers with their expertise in writing clear, concise, comprehensible, and coherent content are often a great support to researchers. Their contribution to the manuscript is usually focused on getting a manuscript ready for publication. They are not authors unless they make substantial contribution to the study according to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). However, medical writing is not the same as ghostwriting. Ghostwriting is unethical. Medical writers can be legitimate contributors to the medical manuscript. Several international guidelines including the ICMJE guidelines require authors to acknowledge the contribution of medical writers in the published article. Medical writers whose name is publicly associated with the article in turn make an extra effort to ensure that all applicable publication ethics and style guidelines are adhered to. This article discusses the current international guidelines about the acknowledgement of writing assistance. It also emphasizes on how acknowledging medical writing support can go a long way in curbing the menace of scientific misconduct including ghostwriting.

show abstract

Medical Ghost-Writing

Cited by 23 publications

References 27 publications

“Backstage solidarity” in Spanish‐ and English‐written medical research papers: Publication context and the acknowledgment paratext

“Backstage solidarity” in Spanish‐ and English‐written medical research papers: Publication context and the acknowledgment paratext

Individual and Institutional Corruption in European and US Healthcare: Overview and Link of Various Corruption Typologies

Hiring a professional medical writer: is it equivalent to ghostwriting?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About