Publishing standards -More on Elsevier/Merck

["Colin Steele" <Colin.Steele@anu.edu.au>]

A reminder before the Bentham Science saga escalates, that care 
is needed on all publishing fronts. The Australian newspaper of 
June 19 reports further on the Merck/Elsevier 'collusion' Colin

"Publisher consulted drug firm on journal content"

Milanda Rout | June 19, 2009

THE world's largest medical publisher asked the manufacturers of 
anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx which articles they wanted to 
include in a so-called medical journal on bone health.

Documents tendered to a Federal Court class action reveal staff 
at publishing company Elsevier, which produces The Lancet, 
emailed pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co about its "preferred 
content selection" for the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint 
Medicine.

The publisher also admits the journal is a "single sponsored 
publication" where most of the content is chosen by Merck with 
some "input from Elsevier".

The plaintiff in the class action has alleged the journal was 
fake and it was simply a marketing exercise designed to promote 
Vioxx. The court has also heard Merck put the names of 
high-profile arthritis experts on the editorial board of the 
phoney journal without telling them they had done so.

Since these revelations, Elsevier has expressed embarrassment 
over its role and admitted it failed to meet its own "high 
standards for disclosure".

Lead plaintiff Graeme Peterson, on behalf of thousands of 
Australians, is suing Merck & Co and its Australian subsidiary 
Merck, Sharp & Dohme for compensation. He blames Vioxx for his 
2003 heart attack and alleges the company covered up the 
increased risk of cardiovascular problems associated with the 
drug long before it withdrew it in September 2004.

Merck claims there is no definitive scientific proof Vioxx caused 
heart attacks and that it had acted responsibly.

Tendered emails between Merck Australian marketing staff and 
"account managers" from Elsevier Australia and Excerpta Medica 
Communications, a subsidiary of Elsevier, revealed the level of 
collusion about content in the so-called medical journal.

"It would great if I could arrange a time to come and see you 
early next week if possible to discuss you (sic) preferred 
content selection," Elsevier account manager Karina Wieland wrote 
on January 6, 2004.

The correspondence, tendered by lawyers for the plaintiff, also 
details the response to complaints by angry medical experts who 
had their names listed on the journal's editorial board without 
their knowledge or permission.

A draft letter sent to Merck staff and provisionally addressed to 
Professor Peter Brooks, says articles were written by Elsevier 
editorial staff on a topic that "is often selected by the client" 
and they understood if he did not want to continue being on the 
honorary board.

They also informed him a disclaimer would now run in the journal 
saying the publication was made up of company-sponsored material 
and the board members had not reviewed the content of the 
articles".

---------------

Ps the UK THES of June 18 picks up another Elsevier issue

Publisher 'threat' to open access
18 June 2009

By Zoe Corbyn 
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=407046&c=1


A multinational journal giant is understood to be courting vice- 
chancellors in an effort to win their support for an alternative 
to open-access institutional research repositories...

"The argument being used is that this will be cheaper than 
maintaining full text within repositories. If these reports are 
true, my guess is that Elsevier is using these arguments to 
undermine deposit mandates." The author of the post, Fred Friend, 
a consultant and former library director, said he wanted 
repository managers to be aware of the situation.He said a 
repository operated by a journal publisher could set access 
conditions that undermine the needs of researchers and make it 
hard to "mine" the data."If any publisher were to attempt to 
undermine the value of open-access repositories to the academic 
community, it would be a matter of public interest," he added.

Stevan Harnad, a professor at the University of Southampton who 
champions institutional repositories, said he was not surprised 
by the development. "If vice-chancellors are persuaded to adopt 
this policy, it would give repository access only to an 
unsatisfactory version (PDFs will not enable re-use for research 
purposes) and access on Elsevier's terms," he said.

Deborah Shorley, director of library services at Imperial College 
London, said she was not aware of Elsevier's activities, but 
added that "we have to make sure the control remains in the right 
place, which is with researchers".

Shira Tabachnikoff, director of corporate communications at 
Elsevier, confirmed that preliminary discussions had taken place 
with some institutions but would not go into detail on their 
nature."Institutional repositories might not be the best way for 
institutes to showcase their research," she said. "These 
discussions are about working with them to find improved 
methods."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Steele
Emeritus Fellow
Copland Building 24
Room G037, Division of Information
The Australian National University
Canberra  ACT 0200
Australia