{"id":24438,"date":"2012-06-13T21:46:05","date_gmt":"2012-06-14T01:46:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=24438"},"modified":"2012-06-14T00:12:12","modified_gmt":"2012-06-14T04:12:12","slug":"mens-rea-actus-reus-crime","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/06\/13\/mens-rea-actus-reus-crime\/","title":{"rendered":"mens rea<\/em> + actus reus<\/em> = crime"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Ghosts In The Pharma Attic: Jon & Jeff Explain<\/font><\/a><\/strong><\/u>
Pharmalot<\/font><\/strong>
By Ed Silverman
June 12th, 2012<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

… Some might say it is a minor point but in academic medicine there is currently an institutionalized loophole in place, that essentially says that anyone deserving of the term “author” should be listed on the byline, unless they are employed by a pharmaceutical company, in which case it is acceptable to mention them in the acknowledgement section. We do not think this is a good idea. For each segment below we discuss how various groups or organizations have approached this idea. We would appreciate any comments or thoughts on this.<\/p>\n

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors<\/font><\/strong>
Ironically, the most problematic policy in terms of allowing ghostwriting comes from the group with the most power to curb the practice. The ICMJE, a group of medical editors who have developed policies related to the medical publishing process, has proposed three criteria for determining who should be given a byline as author on scientific papers. These criteria are:<\/sup><\/div>\n

    <\/p>\n
  1. \n
    substantive contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  2. \n
    drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  3. \n
    final approval of the version to be published.<\/div>\n<\/li>\n

    <\/sup><\/ol>\n

    While these are now the traditional, oft-cited criteria for authorship, they do not address the contemporary concern of ghostwriting. In fact, although unintended, use of the ICMJE criteria may facilitate ghostwriting while creating the impression that medical journals have strict policies on authorship.<\/p>\n

    Consider this hypothetical situation: <\/sup><\/div>\n