How Industry Uses the ICMJE Guidelines to Manipulate Authorship—And How They Should Be Revised
Open Access
- 9 August 2011
- journal article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLoS Medicine
- Vol. 8 (8), e1001072
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001072
Abstract
Based upon his 15 years of experience as a medical writer, Alastair Matheson argues that rather than obstructing industry, the current ICMJE authorship guidelines have become its preferred tool for misattributing authorship.This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Haunting of Medical Journals: How Ghostwriting Sold “HRT”PLoS Medicine, 2010
- Toward More Uniform Conflict Disclosures — The Updated ICMJE Conflict of Interest Reporting FormThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2010
- PUBLICATION ETHICS AND THE GHOST MANAGEMENT OF MEDICAL PUBLICATIONBioethics, 2010
- Good publication practice for communicating company sponsored medical research: the GPP2 guidelinesBMJ, 2009
- Ghostwriting: The Dirty Little Secret of Medical Publishing That Just Got BiggerPLoS Medicine, 2009
- What Should Be Done To Tackle Ghostwriting in the Medical Literature?PLoS Medicine, 2009
- Corporate Science and the Husbandry of Scientific and Medical Knowledge by the Pharmaceutical IndustryBioSocieties, 2008
- Key opinion leaders: independent experts or drug representatives in disguise?BMJ, 2008
- European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publicationsCurrent Medical Research and Opinion, 2005
- Guidelines on authorship. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.BMJ, 1985