The University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia said yesterday that two of its psychiatrists were rightful authors of a widely cited 2001 paper on a controversial antidepressant. It also said that that the scientific authors broke no rules in place at the time when the final publication failed to acknowledge a medical writing company paid by the drug's maker to help prepare the manuscript.
“While current journal and [university] policy call for the acknowledgement of the assistance of a medical writer...guidelines in place in 2001 did not,” the university's school of medicine said in a statement.
UPDATE: New title from Pinko Punko in the comments
This is pathetic. This is akin to saying that murder is not explicitly outlawed in the rules of baseball. Did these guys learn rhetoric on the internet?
ReplyDeleteI was pretty shocked when I learned about ghostwriting in the medical journals.
ReplyDeleteRe: "ghostwriting in the medical journals."
ReplyDeleteWhat's next?
Goats writing in the veterinary journals?
~@:>
ReplyDeleteWhat's next?
Goats writing in the veterinary journals?
How about "Old goats writing in Energy and Environment"?
Well, neither is breaking the quarterback's neck , hence,when Hamilton Fish partially decapitated his opposite number in The Game a hundred years ago, Harvard copped a ten yard penalty for unnecessary roughness.
ReplyDeleteThey're saying the complaint was prematurely anti-ghostwriter.
ReplyDeleteHA- nice, Hank
ReplyDelete@BillD
ReplyDeleteIn the last few years, some scientific journals have required a statement: who planned and designed the research? Who carried out the research, who analysed the results and and who wrote the paper? This is, in part, an effort to make sure that all co-authors played a significant role. Seems that it would be embarrassing to say that the data were analyzed and the paper was written by a "ghost writer."