Medical editors issue guidance on ghost writing
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
The World Association of Medical Editors has tightened its policy on ghost writing of medical research papers after a US journal highlighted what it alleges were illegitimate ghost writing practices, although it has been denied that the paper in question was an example of the practice.
Ghost writing, says the association, is "unacceptable." But it accepts that professional medical writers can be legitimate contributors to an article and says that their roles and affiliations should always be described in the manuscript.
"Ghost writing initiated by industry is a big concern," said Robert Fletcher, chairman of the association抯 editorial policy board and professor of ambulatory care and prevention at Harvard Medical School. "When it is undetected, it distorts the scientific record, substituting marketing and persuasion for the balanced exchange of views and the search for sound answers that characterise the contents of medical journals at their best."
Dr Martha Gerrity, co-editor of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, alerted the association to the problem after one of her peer reviewers blew the whistle on a paper that Dr Gerrity was considering publishing.
The reviewer, Dr Adriane Fugh-Berman, associate professor in the department of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, was asked by Dr Gerrity to look at the paper, which was on the use of warfarin and its interaction with herbal and dietary supplements. But Dr Fugh-Berman told the journal that she had previously been approached by a company working on behalf of AstraZeneca, asking her if she would put her name to the paper as an author.
Writing in the UK抯 Guardian newspaper last week (2005 April 21; "Life" section, p. 9; http://education.guardian.co.uk), Dr Fugh-Berman said: "I was asked by Rx Communications, a British medical communication company, to author a review of interactions between herbs and warfarin ?The usual practice is for a complete article to be supplied; all I would have to do was review it and sign it off." She declined.
AstraZeneca, however, argues that this was not a case of ghost writing but a "very serious error." According to Dr Valerie Siddall, head of global publications for AstraZeneca, Dr Fugh-Berman should have received a preliminary outline of a proposed article on a similar topic, drafted by one of their writers, not the one she saw, which was the final work of another clinician.
"The article was not ghost written," said Dr Siddall. "AstraZeneca does not support the practice of ghost writing," she said.
Ruth Withington, managing director of Rx Communications, which is based in north Wales, said, "We made a mistake." She said she had apologised to the author, the company, and Dr Fugh-Berman. Mrs Withington says that Dr Fugh-Berman was sent the wrong paper, which—to compound the error—did not contain the true author抯 name.
The author, whose name has not been disclosed by the Journal of General Internal Medicine, has been asked by the journal not to submit a paper to it again. AstraZeneca claims the author has been "wrongly accused of acting unethically."
The World Association of Medical Authors defines ghost writing as when someone has made substantial contributions to writing a manuscript and this role is not mentioned in the manuscript itself. It says that ghost writers generally work on behalf of companies with a commercial interest in the topic or agents acting for those companies.
It describes how a commercial company employs a professional writer to prepare the article but will, after submitting it to an expert for minor revisions, put the article under the expert抯 name. In some cases the experts will be paid for their help. In other cases researchers will hire a professional writer but present the article as their own work.
The issue of ghost writing was touched on in a recent report of the UK House of Commons Health Committee. Dr John Patterson, executive director of development for AstraZeneca, testified to the select committee that ghost writing was not practised in his company (BMJ 2005;330:163). He was not aware of this incident when he gave evidence, said Dr Siddall, which, she emphasised, was not in any case an instance of ghost writing.
She added that the company believes that professional writers do have a legitimate role to play in assisting authors, as long as any such collaboration follows ethically acceptable practice.(Lynn Eaton)
Ghost writing, says the association, is "unacceptable." But it accepts that professional medical writers can be legitimate contributors to an article and says that their roles and affiliations should always be described in the manuscript.
"Ghost writing initiated by industry is a big concern," said Robert Fletcher, chairman of the association抯 editorial policy board and professor of ambulatory care and prevention at Harvard Medical School. "When it is undetected, it distorts the scientific record, substituting marketing and persuasion for the balanced exchange of views and the search for sound answers that characterise the contents of medical journals at their best."
Dr Martha Gerrity, co-editor of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, alerted the association to the problem after one of her peer reviewers blew the whistle on a paper that Dr Gerrity was considering publishing.
The reviewer, Dr Adriane Fugh-Berman, associate professor in the department of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, was asked by Dr Gerrity to look at the paper, which was on the use of warfarin and its interaction with herbal and dietary supplements. But Dr Fugh-Berman told the journal that she had previously been approached by a company working on behalf of AstraZeneca, asking her if she would put her name to the paper as an author.
Writing in the UK抯 Guardian newspaper last week (2005 April 21; "Life" section, p. 9; http://education.guardian.co.uk), Dr Fugh-Berman said: "I was asked by Rx Communications, a British medical communication company, to author a review of interactions between herbs and warfarin ?The usual practice is for a complete article to be supplied; all I would have to do was review it and sign it off." She declined.
AstraZeneca, however, argues that this was not a case of ghost writing but a "very serious error." According to Dr Valerie Siddall, head of global publications for AstraZeneca, Dr Fugh-Berman should have received a preliminary outline of a proposed article on a similar topic, drafted by one of their writers, not the one she saw, which was the final work of another clinician.
"The article was not ghost written," said Dr Siddall. "AstraZeneca does not support the practice of ghost writing," she said.
Ruth Withington, managing director of Rx Communications, which is based in north Wales, said, "We made a mistake." She said she had apologised to the author, the company, and Dr Fugh-Berman. Mrs Withington says that Dr Fugh-Berman was sent the wrong paper, which—to compound the error—did not contain the true author抯 name.
The author, whose name has not been disclosed by the Journal of General Internal Medicine, has been asked by the journal not to submit a paper to it again. AstraZeneca claims the author has been "wrongly accused of acting unethically."
The World Association of Medical Authors defines ghost writing as when someone has made substantial contributions to writing a manuscript and this role is not mentioned in the manuscript itself. It says that ghost writers generally work on behalf of companies with a commercial interest in the topic or agents acting for those companies.
It describes how a commercial company employs a professional writer to prepare the article but will, after submitting it to an expert for minor revisions, put the article under the expert抯 name. In some cases the experts will be paid for their help. In other cases researchers will hire a professional writer but present the article as their own work.
The issue of ghost writing was touched on in a recent report of the UK House of Commons Health Committee. Dr John Patterson, executive director of development for AstraZeneca, testified to the select committee that ghost writing was not practised in his company (BMJ 2005;330:163). He was not aware of this incident when he gave evidence, said Dr Siddall, which, she emphasised, was not in any case an instance of ghost writing.
She added that the company believes that professional writers do have a legitimate role to play in assisting authors, as long as any such collaboration follows ethically acceptable practice.(Lynn Eaton)