Publication ethics and the ghost management of medical publication

Bioethics 24 (6):273-283 (2010)

Authors
Mathieu Doucet
University of Waterloo
Sergio Sismondo
Queen's University
Abstract
It is by now no secret that some scientific articles are ghost authored – that is, written by someone other than the person whose name appears at the top of the article. Ghost authorship, however, is only one sort of ghosting. In this article, we present evidence that pharmaceutical companies engage in the ghost management of the scientific literature, by controlling or shaping several crucial steps in the research, writing, and publication of scientific articles. Ghost management allows the pharmaceutical industry to shape the literature in ways that serve its interests. This article aims to reinforce and expand publication ethics as an important area of concern for bioethics. Since ghost-managed research is primarily undertaken in the interests of marketing, large quantities of medical research violate not just publication norms but also research ethics. Much of this research involves human subjects, and yet is performed not primarily to increase knowledge for broad human benefit, but to disseminate results in the service of profits. Those who sponsor, manage, conduct, and publish such research therefore behave unethically, since they put patients at risk without justification. This leads us to a strong conclusion: if medical journals want to ensure that the research they publish is ethically sound, they should not publish articles that are commercially sponsored.
Keywords publication ethics  sponsorship bias  research ethics  ghost management
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2010
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.01702.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 39,669
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Scientists’ Conceptions of Good Research Practice.Nora Hangel & Jutta Schickore - 2017 - Perspectives on Science 25 (6):766-791.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-02-17

Total views
52 ( #142,342 of 2,326,639 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #721,351 of 2,326,639 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature