Andrew Newton 
Most Read on APEsphere
Most Commented on APEsphere
Blogs we like
Resources
An update from The Scientist (free reg'n req'd) on the Merck/Elsevier story: there were six other fake journals issued on behalf of unnamed sponsors.
We previously covered Elsevier's publication of an apparently peer-reviewed serious journal for Merck, that was in fact a Merck-sponsored promotional tool.
Now The Scientist has found that there were seven such journals published between 2000 and 2005 by Elsevier's Australian operation.
"a "series of sponsored article publications" were put out by their Australia office and bore the Excerpta Medica imprint from 2000 to 2005. These titles were: the Australasian Journal of General Practice, the Australasian Journal of Neurology, the Australasian Journal of Cardiology, the Australasian Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, the Australasian Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine, and the Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint. Elsevier declined to provide the names of the sponsors of these titles, according to the company spokesperson."
If they can, would Merck and the other major drug companies please start denying their involvement in these others so we can see who the unnamed drug companies are?
Merck paid medical publisher Elsevier to publish a few volumes of Merck-favored research with the appearance of a serious peer-reviewed journal.
Instead, the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine was in effect just company-sponsored marketing material without the sponsorship disclosure.
While the serious ethical breach by Merck is receiving much attention, I'd like to draw attention also to the bizarre ethical breach by the publisher.
Elsevier has a reputation as a serious publisher of peer-reviewed science, technical and medical journals. It knew that by attaching its name to this journal it would lead people into assuming that the same standards would apply to the information and views it contained.
Elsevier has a responsibility for its mind print. The information that it publishes can and will be taken and used for better or worse. Elsevier's corporate social responsibility page, however, prefers to talk about philanthropic and environmental initiatives.
Time for them to re-center on why they exist. Clue: it was not to squeeze an extra bit of revenue out of their brand by lending credence to Merck's blindingly unethical misstep.