Industry-sponsored ghost- and guest-authored clinical research publications are a continuing problem in medical journals. These communications are written by unacknowledged medical communication companies and submitted to peer-reviewed journals by academicians who may not have participated in the writing process. These publications, which are used for marketing purposes, usually underestimate the adverse effects and medical risks associated with the products evaluated. Since peer-reviewed data are used to develop health care paradigms, misleading information can have catastrophic effects. A failure to curb ghost and guest authorship will result in an erosion of trust in the peer-review system, academic research, and health care paradigms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
. SismondoS. Ghost management: how much of the medical literature is shaped behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical industry?PLoS Med2007; 4: e286.
2.
. McHenryL. Of sophists and spin-doctors: industry-sponsored ghostwriting and the crisis of academic medicine. Mens Sana Monogr2010; 8: 129–45.
3.
. LisseJR, PerlmanM, JohanssonG, Gastrointestinal tolerability and effectiveness of rofecoxib versus naproxen in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med2003; 139: 539–46.
4.
. SpielmansGI, ParryPI. From documents evidence based medicine to marketing-based medicine: evidence from internal industry. Bioeth Inq2010; 7: 13–6.
5.
. HealyD, CattellD. Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics. Br J Psychiatry2003; 183: 22–7.
6.
. LexchinJ, BeroLA, DjulbegovicB, ClarkO. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ2003; 326: 1167–70.
7.
. BekelmanJE, LiY, GrossCP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA2003; 289: 454–65.
8.
. WislarJS, FlanaginA, FontanarosaPB, DeangelisCD. Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ2011; 343: d6128.
9.
. DotsonB, SlaughterRL. Prevalence of articles with honorary and ghost authors in three pharmacy journals. Am J Health Syst Pharm2011; 68: 1730–4.
10.
. SteinmanMA, BeroLA, ChrenMM, LandefeldCS. Narrative review: the promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Ann Intern Med2006; 145: 284–93.
11.
. KellerMB, RyanND, StroberM, Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry2001; 40: 762–72.
. MansiBA, ClarkJ, DavidFS, Ten recommendations for closing the credibility gap in reporting industry-sponsored clinical research: a joint journal and pharmaceutical industry perspective. Mayo Clin Proc2012; 87: 424–9.
16.
. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. II.A. Authorship and contributorship. www.icmje.org (accessed 2012 Nov 16).
17.
. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscript submission. ICJME uniform disclosure form for potential conflicts of interest. www.icmje.org (accessed 2012 Nov 17).
18.
. SternS, LemmensT. Legal remedies for medical ghostwriting: imposing fraud liability on guest authors of ghostwritten articles. PLoS Med2011; 8: e1001070. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.100107
19.
. BerquistTH. Authorship creep: do we need a new process. Am J Roentgenol2009; 193: 599–600.
