It turns out that the /Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine/ 
(about which I posted a couple of days ago) is only one of SIX fake 
journals that was published by Elsevier (see below). All were 
"/Autralasian Journal of /[something or other]" All were sponsored by 
pharmaceutical companies (that the publisher refuses to disclose). 
Elsevier now blames it on a renegade Australian office and says that 
"This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place." 
Will they return the money?

Chris Green
York U.
Toronto

-------- Original Message --------


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
--- Begin Message ---
Elsevier published 6 fake journals
Posted by Bob Grant
[Entry posted at 7th May 2009 04:27 PM GMT]
     
      Scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of six publications 
between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies 
and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose 
sponsorship, the company has admitted. 

      Elsevier is conducting an "internal review" of its publishing practices 
after allegations came to light that the company produced a pharmaceutical 
company-funded publication in the early 2000s without disclosing that the 
"journal" was corporate sponsored. 

           
            Image: flicker/meviola  
      The allegations involve the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint 
Medicine, a publication paid for by pharmaceutical company Merck that amounted 
to a compendium of reprinted scientific articles and one-source reviews, most 
of which presented data favorable to Merck's products. The Scientist obtained 
two 2003 issues of the journal -- which bore the imprint of Elsevier's Excerpta 
Medica -- neither of which carried a statement obviating Merck's sponsorship of 
the publication. 

      An Elsevier spokesperson told The Scientist in an email that a total of 
six titles in 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 
[Medicine]. Elsevier declined to provide the names of the sponsors of these 
titles, according to the company spokesperson. 

      "It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our 
Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation 
publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like 
journals and lacked the proper disclosures," said Michael Hansen, CEO of 
Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, in a statement issued by the company. 
"This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place." 

      When confronted with the questionable publishing practices surrounding 
the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine last week, Elsevier 
indicated that it had no plans of looking into the matter further, but that 
decision has apparently been reversed. 

      "We are currently conducting an internal review but believe this was an 
isolated practice from a past period in time," Hansen continued in the Elsevier 
statement. "It does not reflect the way we operate today. The individuals 
involved in the project have long since left the company. I have affirmed our 
business practices as they relate to what defines a journal and the proper use 
of disclosure language with our employees to ensure this does not happen 
again." 

      "I understand this issue has troubled our communities of authors, 
editors, customers and employees," Hansen added in the statement. "But I can 
assure all that the integrity of Elsevier's publications and business practices 
remains intact." 

      Correction (May 7): The headline and original version of this story 
incorrectly indicated that Elsevier had produced seven titles in their "series 
of sponsored article publications" when in fact the publisher produced only 
six. The Scientist regrets the error. 

      Related stories: 
      a.. Merck published fake journal 
      [30th April 2009] 
      a.. Elsevier expands biopharma base 
      [11th March 2008] 
      a.. Merck's fall from grace 
      [May 2006]
     


Source: TheScientist
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55679/

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

<<55671-1.jpg>>


--- End Message ---

Reply via email to