Profits and plagiarism: the case of medical ghostwriting

Ghosts, brands, and influencers: Emergent trends in scientific authorship

This essay is about the unique role of proper nouns at the intersection of knowledge and property, both tangible and intangible. Nouns are central to any form of property and credit, from a person's name listed on a property deed or copyright registration, to the name of an artist to whom a work is attributed, or that of a scientist after whom a discovery or theory is named. And names can also be found on the other end of the property spectrum, not as the names of authors and owners but as objects of property, as in the case of brand names. Here I trace some of the functions of these names as they move across different scenarios of knowledge-making and property-making, focusing on some of the effects those trajectories are having in the contemporary technosciences as they bring together the function of the author and that of the brand.

Can Authorship be Denied for Contract Work?

Ethical considerations arise when individuals who were contracted and paid to conduct a research study and write it up for publication, are denied authorship on a scholarly publication on the grounds that their work was contracted and paid for. Each of the various stakeholders should be considered. Researchers need to make sure that the contract recognizes their intellectual contribution and their right to be named as authors if and when the contracted study is published. If authorship disputes of published works arise, journal editors should have mechanisms in place for addressing such disputes. They should be able to see the contract and have all disputing parties agree to any changes in authorship. If the dispute cannot be resolved, the manuscript should be retracted. Contractors should develop a publication plan and include in the contract stipulations ensuring transparent and unambiguous authorship on any publication ensuing from contracted work. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the Committee for Publication Ethics should update their guidance for authors to include advice regarding researchers involved in contracted work and how to resolve an authorship disputes around it.

Ghostwriting in biomedicine: a review of the published literature

Introduction: The systematic review of biomedical ghostwriting has proven challenging due to problems in consistency and in study design. Moreover, authorship guidelines established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) may have inadvertently created opportunities to potentiate ghostwriting. Given continued interest in ghostwriting by the International Society of Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) and other organizations, we undertook an analysis of ghostwriting in the biomedical literature.Methods: We searched PubMed (search terms: ghost writ*, ghostwrit*, ghost writer, ghostwriter, ghostwriting and ghost writing). Results, including abstracts, were reviewed for relevance (relationship to ghostwriting in biomedical journals) to aid in removal of inapplicable work and duplicate publications. After review, we consolidated expert opinions for publication professionals.Results: Overlap was poor across search terms; of 181 unique papers identified, most (112/181) were opinion pieces. An increasing number of papers are using the term "ghostwriting" to describe genetics as well as diverse phenomena of misattributed authorship, including "ghost authorship". Eight primary studies and 1 systematic review of ghostwriting incidence were identified, reporting prevalence ranging from <1% to 91%, in varied settings using differing methods and definitions of ghostwriting. Suggestions for avoiding ghostwriting include early consensus building and better definitions of authorship among manuscript teams.Discussion: The prevalence and definition of ghostwriting remain unclear. Increased transparency and auditable authorship practices that align with specific guidelines may aid in the avoidance of ghostwriting. In addition, MeSH or clearer indexing terms may be helpful to separate usages of ghostwriting in scientific settings (e.g. genetic research) versus biomedical publishing.

Plagiarism in research

Plagiarism is a major problem for research. There are, however, divergent views on how to define plagiarism and on what makes plagiarism reprehensible. In this paper we explicate the concept of "plagiarism" and discuss plagiarism normatively in relation to research. We suggest that plagiarism should be understood as "someone using someone else's intellectual product (such as texts, ideas, or results), thereby implying that it is their own" and argue that this is an adequate and fruitful definition. We discuss a number of circumstances that make plagiarism more or less grave and the plagiariser more or less blameworthy. As a result of our normative analysis, we suggest that what makes plagiarism reprehensible as such is that it distorts scientific credit. In addition, intentional plagiarism involves dishonesty. There are, furthermore, a number of potentially negative consequences of plagiarism.

Managing conflicts of interest in clinical care: the "race to the middle" at U.S. medical schools

PURPOSE

National recommendations specify how medical schools should manage clinical conflicts of interest (CCOIs), including gifts and payments to physicians from pharmaceutical companies. A 2008 study showed that few schools had policies in keeping with the recommendations. The authors conducted a follow-up study in 2011 to assess possible improvements.

METHOD

To obtain policies in 12 areas of CCOI, the authors searched the Web sites of all 133 medical schools existing in July 2011 and contacted schools that had no online policies. Policies were scored as no policy, permissive, moderate, or stringent, based on published recommendations; each school's scores were averaged to assess overall policy strength. Changes since 2008 were evaluated. The authors also collected information on schools' public/private status, hospital ownership/affiliation, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding to determine whether these characteristics were associated with differences in policy strength.

RESULTS

Policies were obtained for a representative sample of 127 (95%) medical schools. The frequency of stringent policies increased from 2008 to 2011 in all CCOI areas, and medical schools' overall policy strength more than doubled. However, less than stringent policies remained the norm for all areas except ghostwriting. Greater NIH funding was associated with stronger policies in five areas and with higher overall policy strength.

CONCLUSIONS

Schools have made great progress toward national standards, yet room for improvement remains: The data reveal not a race to the top but a shift from the bottom to the middle. Follow-up research should explore whether stronger policies emerge in the future.