Merck et Elsevier pris en flagrant délit

La semaine dernière, l'hebdomadaire The Scientist révélait que Merck avait publié un fausse revue scientifique en Australie pour mousser les ventes de son médicament contre l'ostéoporose. L'éditeur impliqué est Elsevier qui a publié durant deux ans the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine.

Cette semaine on apprend que la filiale australienne d'Elsevier en a publié six autres comme ça, entre 2000 et 2005, tous en Australie. Elsevier a refusé de nommer les pharmaceutiques impliqués dans ce marketing déguisé en science et a annoncé un "processus de révision interne" de ses politiques.

Il y a longtemps qu'il y a quelque chose de pourri au royaume des multinationales de la pharmacie. Tout le système est construit sur des prémisses qui n'ont rien à voir avec la médecine et le bien commun: brevets sur tout et n'importe quoi, recherche orientée vers les seuls types de produits capables de générer des milliards $ de profits, prix fixés par le montant maximum que le marché peut supporter, etc. Il s'en suit les dérives que l'on connaît.

Il est toujours frappant de lire les professions de foi de ces multinationales. Celle de Merck est un modèle du genre: "At Merck, our fundamental responsibility is discovering, developing and delivering innovative medicines and vaccines that can make a difference in people's lives and create a healthier future. We believe that fulfilling this responsibility in a sustainable manner entails high ethical standards and a culture that values honesty, integrity and transparency in all that we do." Leur slogan est "Where the patient comes first". Comme langue de bois, on ne fait pas mieux...


Si vous ne pouvez pas ouvrir le lien suivant qui vous mène à l'article original: Elsevier published 7 fake journals

Voici une copie de l'article:

Posted by Bob Grant.
[Entry posted at 7th May 2009 04:27 PM GMT]

Scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of seven publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted.

Elsevier is conducting an "internal review" of its publishing practices after allegations came to light that the company produced a pharmaceutical company-funded publication in the early 2000s without disclosing that the "journal" was corporate sponsored.

The allegations involve the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, a publication paid for by pharmaceutical company Merck that amounted to a compendium of reprinted scientific articles and one-source reviews, most of which presented data favorable to Merck's products. The Scientist obtained two 2003 issues of the journal -- which bore the imprint of Elsevier's Excerpta Medica -- neither of which carried a statement obviating Merck's sponsorship of the publication.

An Elsevier spokesperson told The Scientist in an email that six other titles in a "series of sponsored article publications" were put out by their Australia office and bore the Excerpta Medica imprint from 2000 to 2005. These titles were: the Australasian Journal of General Practice, the Australasian Journal of Neurology, the Australasian Journal of Cardiology, the Australasian Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, the Australasian Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine, and the Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint. Elsevier declined to provide the names of the sponsors of these titles, according to the company spokesperson.

"It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures," said Michael Hansen, CEO of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, in a statement issued by the company. "This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place."

When confronted with the questionable publishing practices surrounding the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine last week, Elsevier indicated that it had no plans of looking into the matter further, but that decision has apparently been reversed.

"We are currently conducting an internal review but believe this was an isolated practice from a past period in time," Hansen continued in the Elsevier statement. "It does not reflect the way we operate today. The individuals involved in the project have long since left the company. I have affirmed our business practices as they relate to what defines a journal and the proper use of disclosure language with our employees to ensure this does not happen again."

"I understand this issue has troubled our communities of authors, editors, customers and employees," Hansen added in the statement. "But I can assure all that the integrity of Elsevier's publications and business practices remains intact."