This case-study review of industry documents demonstrates that clinical trial manuscripts related to rofecoxib were authored by sponsor employees but often attributed first authorship to academically affiliated investigators who did not always disclose industry financial support. Review manuscripts were often prepared by unacknowledged authors and subsequently attributed authorship to academically affiliated investigators who often did not disclose industry financial support.
(Take a look at the related article in the same issue: Reporting Mortality Findings in Trials of Rofecoxib for Alzheimer Disease or Cognitive Impairment: A Case Study Based on Documents From Rofecoxib Litigation.)
There is also an editorial on the issue from the Editor in Chief Catherine DeAngelis who wants to get rid of this kind of malpractice in publishing. She formulates 11 concrete measures (to medical publishers).
Similar to these facts is the (older) news about other trials where the pharmaceutical company Pfizer lost her case against the journals JAMA and the New England journal of medicine. Confidentiality (and anonymity) of the peer review process was at stake in those litigations.
Tips via: Informatie Professional (registration required) and medinfo
The ethics of publication practice with regard to clinical research was the topic of a joint conference earlier this year by The European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) and The Institute of Clinical Research (ICR, http://www.icr-global.org). A report on this meeting will be published in both , including discussion of Guest- and Ghost-authors and efforts to “clean up” the sometimes murky world of medical publishing (as frequently, but less noticeably, by individual investigators as by larger organisations).
You can read some reportage from this meeting on my blog: crfocus.wordpress.com
Hello Sir!
Even the gurus will agree with what is being said here. I am glad I found it.