Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation.

Department of Geriatrics and Adult Development, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York 10029, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 29.98). 05/2008; 299(15):1800-12. DOI: 10.1001/jama.299.15.1800
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Authorship in biomedical publication provides recognition and establishes accountability and responsibility. Recent litigation related to rofecoxib provided a unique opportunity to examine guest authorship and ghostwriting, practices that have been suspected in biomedical publication but for which there is little documentation.
To characterize different types and the extent of guest authorship and ghostwriting in 1 case study.
Court documents originally obtained during litigation related to rofecoxib against Merck & Co Inc. Documents were created predominantly between 1996 and 2004. In addition, publicly available articles related to rofecoxib identified via MEDLINE.
All documents were reviewed by one author, with selected review by coauthors, using an iterative process of review, discussion, and rereview of documents to identify information related to guest authorship or ghostwriting.
Approximately 250 documents were relevant to our review. For the publication of clinical trials, documents were found describing Merck employees working either independently or in collaboration with medical publishing companies to prepare manuscripts and subsequently recruiting external, academically affiliated investigators to be authors. Recruited authors were frequently placed in the first and second positions of the authorship list. For the publication of scientific review papers, documents were found describing Merck marketing employees developing plans for manuscripts, contracting with medical publishing companies to ghostwrite manuscripts, and recruiting external, academically affiliated investigators to be authors. Recruited authors were commonly the sole author on the manuscript and offered honoraria for their participation. Among 96 relevant published articles, we found that 92% (22 of 24) of clinical trial articles published a disclosure of Merck's financial support, but only 50% (36 of 72) of review articles published either a disclosure of Merck sponsorship or a disclosure of whether the author had received any financial compensation from the company.
This case-study review of industry documents demonstrates that clinical trial manuscripts related to rofecoxib were authored by sponsor employees but often attributed first authorship to academically affiliated investigators who did not always disclose industry financial support. Review manuscripts were often prepared by unacknowledged authors and subsequently attributed authorship to academically affiliated investigators who often did not disclose industry financial support.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Authorship of biomedical articles serves to acknowledge and credit individuals who contributed substantially to the development, writing, and editing of articles. In addition, authorship indicates who is responsible for ideas and experiments, and can be used to hold people accountable if something is disproven or shown false. Types of authorship can be divided into four primary categories: ghost authorship, guest authorship, gift authorship, and legitimate authorship. Of these four categories, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (along with other journals, the World Association of Medical Editors, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Council of Science Editors, and the Committee on Publication Ethics) affirms that only authors who meet the criteria of "legitimate authorship" as authors should be listed on an article. This article discusses what constitutes legitimate article authorship and sets forth the Journal's policy on authorship.
    Plastic and reconstructive surgery 06/2011; 127(6):2496-500. · 2.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    EMBO Reports 06/2011; 12(6). · 7.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Randomized controlled trials assessing new antimicrobials are frequently designed, performed and analysed by the industry. The authorship of these trials is not always transparent, even though authors are expected to be the guarantors of the data presented. Guest authors may not be able to assume full responsibility for all trial data, and ghost authors are frequently no longer available when the need to re-analyse trial results or complement published data arises. Academic and clinical contributions during the planning and design stages of a trial are important. We welcome transparent and appropriate authorship of industry-initiated randomized controlled trials with both positive and negative results.
    Clinical Microbiology and Infection 12/2009; 15(12):1100-2. · 4.58 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from

Similar Publications