Agree. $25K is a Honda Civic. There's gotta be more to the story. He could easily recoup the costs from publicity arrangements. Probably perseverating on "Challenger, go with throttle up".
We're not talking about press releases. We're talking about "peer reviewed" original scientific research reported in the best scientific/medical journals being ghostauthored by drug companies, where the stated authors (from academia) have nothing to do with the work other than accepting a check for having their name listed and the drug company involvement is masked. In some cases, the same papers are published more than once and the papers promote off-label use of the drugs.
While not all that well-known, the phenomenon is actually well-reported in both the medical and scientific press. There are some academicians who have literally built their careers on this practice.
Not true. It is estimated that at least 13% of articles in first-tier journals (NEJM, JAMA, etc.) listed on PubMed contain "ghostauthored" papers--written by drug companies for promotional purposes and where the named authors had little or nothing to do with the study, but were instead paid to front as the authors in order to remove the appearance of bias that would result from drug company authorship, add credibility on the basis of the phony author's reputation, and to promote off-label drug use (that is, for indications beyond what the FDA has approved) which is otherwise illegal.
Some of these papers are actually published multiple times. There is a famous example where essentially the same paper was published three times by three different and non-overlapping groups of authors. In one version the sole author's name was even misspelled. The matter was brought to the University of Washington, where on of the authors was on the faculty (and, in fact, the former dean of the medical school, and the University of Washington held that it did not meet the definition of plagiarism (arguing that consent from the original source, which was granted here by the ghostauthor, was a requirement for plagiarism) and did not force a retraction, a printed correction, or even discipline the so-called author of this paper.
Slashdot Mirror
Agree. $25K is a Honda Civic. There's gotta be more to the story. He could easily recoup the costs from publicity arrangements. Probably perseverating on "Challenger, go with throttle up".
We're not talking about press releases. We're talking about "peer reviewed" original scientific research reported in the best scientific/medical journals being ghostauthored by drug companies, where the stated authors (from academia) have nothing to do with the work other than accepting a check for having their name listed and the drug company involvement is masked. In some cases, the same papers are published more than once and the papers promote off-label use of the drugs.
While not all that well-known, the phenomenon is actually well-reported in both the medical and scientific press. There are some academicians who have literally built their careers on this practice.
Not true. It is estimated that at least 13% of articles in first-tier journals (NEJM, JAMA, etc.) listed on PubMed contain "ghostauthored" papers--written by drug companies for promotional purposes and where the named authors had little or nothing to do with the study, but were instead paid to front as the authors in order to remove the appearance of bias that would result from drug company authorship, add credibility on the basis of the phony author's reputation, and to promote off-label drug use (that is, for indications beyond what the FDA has approved) which is otherwise illegal. Some of these papers are actually published multiple times. There is a famous example where essentially the same paper was published three times by three different and non-overlapping groups of authors. In one version the sole author's name was even misspelled. The matter was brought to the University of Washington, where on of the authors was on the faculty (and, in fact, the former dean of the medical school, and the University of Washington held that it did not meet the definition of plagiarism (arguing that consent from the original source, which was granted here by the ghostauthor, was a requirement for plagiarism) and did not force a retraction, a printed correction, or even discipline the so-called author of this paper.