{"id":24138,"date":"2012-06-06T20:47:17","date_gmt":"2012-06-07T00:47:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=24138"},"modified":"2012-06-06T20:48:53","modified_gmt":"2012-06-07T00:48:53","slug":"24138","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/06\/06\/24138\/","title":{"rendered":"before doing it&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div align=\"justify\">I was just sent this article, short but so clear. Clarity comes best from afar, and this paper is by watchers with an appropriate distance:         <\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.springerlink.com\/content\/v7mq80111353789l\/fulltext.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><u><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Medical Ghostwriting: A University&ndash;Sanctioned Sleight of Hand?<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a><br \/>          <strong><font color=\"#200020\">Society<\/font><\/strong><br \/>          by Jonathan Leo &amp; Jeffrey R. Lacasse <br \/>          May 2012<\/div>\n<p>         <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>As we examined the results of the investigation, we were struck by the fact that the investigative panel seemed to confuse honorary authorship with ghostwriting. To be sure, both are problems in academia, but there are important differences. Honorary authorship consists of someone being placed on the authorship line who did not truly deserve to be listed as an author- often a department head or wellrespected senior researcher in the field. As we have recently argued, ghostwriting is a simpler issue to ascertain, by asking the straightforward question: Was there a writer who contributed significantly to the paper, who was not listed as an author? If the answer is yes, the paper was ghostwritten. This is not just our perspective. In a recent research article on ghostwriting, the editors of JAMA defined a paper as ghostwritten when, &ldquo;An individual who was not listed as an author made contributions that merited authorship,&rdquo; or &ldquo;An unnamed individual participated in writing the article&rdquo;&#8230;<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><em><strong><font color=\"#200020\">&quot;Honorary authorship consists of someone being placed on the authorship  line who did not truly deserve to be listed as an author&#8230;&quot;<\/font><\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n<p>       <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><em><strong><font color=\"#200020\">&quot;Was there a writer who contributed significantly to the paper, who was  not listed as an author? If the answer is yes, the paper was  ghostwritten.&quot;<\/font><\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\">What could be clearer? At issue is why don&#8217;t we simply look at these two things when reviewing a paper or vetting a previous publication? It seems so simple. One reason we don&#8217;t do that is that the honorary authors want full billing and the ghost-writers don&#8217;t. These discussions always come later, after the article is published, and then the rationalizations begin to fly. The classic is the <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/pogoarchives.org\/m\/ph\/sally-laden-sti-deposition-20070315.pdf#page=111\"><u><strong><font color=\"#200020\">cross examination<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a> of Sally Laden on the stand concerning the Study 329 article:     <\/p>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">GSK LAWYER:<\/font><\/strong>    But do you  consider that the work that you did in terms of revising   the draft of  the article to incorporate the authors comments their   analysis and their  changes, Is that a host of hours  in your mind?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">SALLY LADEN:<\/font><\/strong> It was a lot of time. <\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">GSK LAWYER:<\/font><\/strong>    If STI or you had  ghost written  the Keller article would you have   then would there have  been any need to do any of this work that we have   been discussing?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">SALLY LADEN:<\/font><\/strong> Can you tell me what you mean by ghost written?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">GSK LAWYER:<\/font><\/strong> Ghost written is where  the authors of the article have no input at all into the contents of the article.<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">SALLY LADEN:<\/font><\/strong> And then can you  repeat the question please?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">GSK LAWYER:<\/font><\/strong>    With that  identification of ghost writing in mind If STI or you had   ghost written  the Keller article would there have been any need to do   any of the items  that we discussed in terms of your editorial   assistance?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">SALLY LADEN:<\/font><\/strong> That&rsquo;s a hard question to answer because that didn&rsquo;t happen.<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">GSK LAWYER:<\/font><\/strong>    Is it your  testimony that you did  not ghost Study 329 well excuse  me   Is it your  testimony that you did not ghost write the Keller  article  which was  published in the journal of the American Academy of  Child and  Adolescent   Psychiatry?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">SALLY LADEN:<\/font><\/strong> Based on your definition of ghost writing &ndash; absolutely.<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">GSK LAWYER:<\/font><\/strong>    Would you have  bothered to waste your time your effort and your   energy  doing all of  this coordination with the authors if you were a   ghost writer for the  Keller article?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">SALLY LADEN:<\/font><\/strong> I can&rsquo;t answer that.<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">GSK LAWYER:<\/font><\/strong>  Why can&rsquo;t you answer that?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#200020\">SALLY LADEN:<\/font><\/strong> Because I don&rsquo;t believe I was a ghost writer.<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\">Her lawyer defines ghost-writing for her in a way she can deny it. And that&#8217;s the way it seems to always go. The initial article above is actually about the silly decision of the University of Pennsylvania about a 2001 Sally Laden production, <a href=\"http:\/\/ajp.psychiatryonline.org\/article.aspx?Volume=158&#038;page=906&#038;journalID=13\" target=\"_blank\"><u><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Comparison of Imipramine and Paroxetine in the Treatment of Bipolar Depression<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a> [see <u><strong><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/03\/01\/closer-to-becoming-indelible\/\"><font color=\"#200020\">closer to becoming indelible&hellip;<\/font><\/a><\/strong><\/u>]. So even those very clear definitions are game for nit-picking after the fact. And speaking of absurd:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>This leads to many implications for both academic research and the education of aspiring health professionals such as physicians and nurses. In terms of research, it is obvious that there are an undetermined (but large) number of ghostwritten papers in the peer-reviewed medical literature. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of topics where pharmaceutical companies have a stake need to be reexamined with this in mind. There is currently no mechanism in place for handling known ghostwritten papers, and many continue to be cited favorably. Academia might also rethink the perception of pharmaceutical industry-affiliated professors far from retirement who already have nearly 1,000 publications on their curricula vitae. Rather than regarding them as luminaries, we might wonder how many of their publications are ghostwritten, especially in the 1990s and 2000s when, according to the UPenn investigation, policies were not in place to prevent ghostwriting&#8230;<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><em><strong><font color=\"#200020\">&quot;Academia might also rethink the perception of pharmaceutical  industry-affiliated professors far from retirement who already have  nearly 1,000 publications on their curricula vitae. Rather than  regarding them as luminaries, we might wonder how many of their  publications are ghostwritten, especially in the 1990s and 2000s&#8230;&quot;<\/font><\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong>Acknowledge<\/strong> the mentors and advisers in the <strong>Acknowledge<\/strong>-ments, not the byline. These <strong><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed?term=nemeroff%20cb[Author]\">Charlie-Nemeroff<\/a>&#8211;<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed?term=Rush%20AJ[Author]\">John-Rush<\/a>&#8211;<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed?term=Thase%20me[Author]\">Michael-Thase<\/a><\/strong>&nbsp; mega CVs are an embarrassment to the profession. Real academic scholars don&#8217;t do that, piggy-back their names onto the articles of their students or faculty members. None of us believe that Charlie Nemeroff has written or even been involved in writing 651 articles. Any real mentor or chairman wouldn&#8217;t want to get in the way of a young up-and-comer who had sweated over some scientific article. It serves no real purpose, even for the senior signer-oners. It just makes people feel like they&#8217;re insecure. <\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">But I think the biggest point here is that the true &quot;authorship&quot; needs to be determined <u>before<\/u> an article is published. And the &quot;honor system&quot; hasn&#8217;t worked. My solution would be simple. In scientific studies and clinical trials, the primary outcome variables need to be declared before doing the study. Why not require the same thing of authors? &#8211; declare the primary [first] author for any clinical trial or grant supported study before doing it. If something happens along the way, there could be a protocol for changing in midstream if need be. File first drafts publicly. Put anyone not directly involved in the study or its writing in the acknowledgements. For non-grant supported studies, send documentation of involvement with the initial submission.   <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">It may seem like a lot of trouble to go to, but given the magnitude of the problem &#8211; it&#8217;s the right thing to do. We never need to see this kind of thing again:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/11437014\"><u><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Efficacy of Paroxetine in the Treatment of Adolescent Major Depression: A Randomized, Controlled Trial<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a><br \/>                                         <sup>by   MARTIN B. KELLER, M.D., NEAL D. RYAN, M.D., MICHAEL STROBER, PH.D.,   RACHEL G. KLEIN, PH.D., STAN P. KUTCHER, M.D., BORIS BIRMAHER, M.D.,   OWEN R. HAGINO, M.D., HAROLD KOPLEWICZ, M.D., GABRIELLE A. CARLSON,   M.D., GREGORY N. CLARKE, PH.D., GRAHAM J. EMSLIE, M.D., DAVID FEINBERG,   M.D., BARBARA GELLER, M.D., VIVEK KUSUMAKAR, M.D., GEORGE  PAPATHEODOROU,  M.D., WILLIAM H. SACK, M.D., MICHAEL SWEENEY, PH.D.,  KAREN DINEEN  WAGNER, M.D., PH.D., ELIZABETH B. WELLER, M.D., NANCY C.  WINTERS, M.D.,  ROSEMARY OAKES, M.S., AND JAMES P. MCCAFFERTY, B.S.<\/sup><br \/>                                        <strong><font color=\"#200020\">Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry<\/font><\/strong>, 2001, 40(7):762&ndash;772.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">It should simply say:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/11437014\"><u><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Paroxetine in the Treatment of Adolescent Major Depression: A Randomized, Controlled Trial<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a><br \/>                                          <sup>by   Sally Laden &amp; Martin B. Keller<\/sup><br \/>                                         <strong><font color=\"#200020\">Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry<\/font><\/strong>, 2001, 40(7):762&ndash;772.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I was just sent this article, short but so clear. Clarity comes best from afar, and this paper is by watchers with an appropriate distance: Medical Ghostwriting: A University&ndash;Sanctioned Sleight of Hand? Society by Jonathan Leo &amp; Jeffrey R. Lacasse May 2012 As we examined the results of the investigation, we were struck by the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24138","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24138"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24138\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24146,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24138\/revisions\/24146"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}