Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Stories of academics being paid to allow their names to appear on
ghostwritten papers reduce public and medical confidence in the biomedical
literature [1].
To increase trust in the integrity of biomedical papers, the
scientific community has two options: 1. Prohibit authors from receiving
writing assistance, or 2. Provide explicit guidance about what is and
isn’t acceptable practice. Forbidding the use of writing assistance will
appeal to some people, especially those who believe that authors must
write every word of a paper. However, writing assistance is rooted in
academic and industry publication culture. Therefore, attempts to prohibit
its use will maintain the status quo, which means that writing assistance
will continue, primarily, as an underground activity [2,3]. Moreover, this
type of censorship might disadvantage those aspiring authors whose first
language is not English and who want to publish in international journals
[3]. A more effective way of improving honesty in the reporting of science
is for all interested parties to debate what constitutes the responsible
use of writing assistance.
The group who have developed guidelines about ethical publication
practice for pharmaceutical companies should be congratulated for opening
the debate [4]. By stating that the author should determine the content of
a paper and retain responsibility for it, the guidelines promote the two
key aspects of authorship: independence and accountability [5]. Moreover,
the guidelines recommend that writing assistance should be acknowledged– a
point that has already been endorsed by journal editors and professional
medical writers [2,3].
However, these guidelines were developed by industry for industry,
and as such may not be adopted by all sections of the scientific
community. The next step is for these guidelines to be used as a starting
point for the development of a consensus document that reflects the views
of all interested parties.
References
1. Bosely S. Scandal of scientists who take money for papers ghostwritten
by drug companies. The Guardian, February 7, 2002.
2. Flanagin A, Rennie D. Ghostwriters: not always what they appear. JAMA
1995; 274(11):870–871.
3. Lagnado M. Haunted papers. Lancet 2002;359:902.
4. Yamey G. Drug industry writers propose code of ethical conduct. BMJ
2002;324:808.
5. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Nicholls MG, Hoey J, Hojgaard L,
Horton R, Kotzin S, Nylenna M, Overbeke AJ, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB,
Wilkes MS. Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. N Engl J Med
2001;345(11):825–827.
Competing Interests
I am a professional medical writer
Competing interests:
No competing interests
12 April 2002
Max Lagnado
Medical Director
Chameleon Medical Communications, Park House, 111 Uxbridge Road, Ealing, London W5 5LB
Publication guidelines will be most effective if universally endorsed
Stories of academics being paid to allow their names to appear on ghostwritten papers reduce public and medical confidence in the biomedical literature [1].
To increase trust in the integrity of biomedical papers, the scientific community has two options: 1. Prohibit authors from receiving writing assistance, or 2. Provide explicit guidance about what is and isn’t acceptable practice. Forbidding the use of writing assistance will appeal to some people, especially those who believe that authors must write every word of a paper. However, writing assistance is rooted in academic and industry publication culture. Therefore, attempts to prohibit its use will maintain the status quo, which means that writing assistance will continue, primarily, as an underground activity [2,3]. Moreover, this type of censorship might disadvantage those aspiring authors whose first language is not English and who want to publish in international journals [3]. A more effective way of improving honesty in the reporting of science is for all interested parties to debate what constitutes the responsible use of writing assistance.
The group who have developed guidelines about ethical publication practice for pharmaceutical companies should be congratulated for opening the debate [4]. By stating that the author should determine the content of a paper and retain responsibility for it, the guidelines promote the two key aspects of authorship: independence and accountability [5]. Moreover, the guidelines recommend that writing assistance should be acknowledged– a point that has already been endorsed by journal editors and professional medical writers [2,3].
However, these guidelines were developed by industry for industry, and as such may not be adopted by all sections of the scientific community. The next step is for these guidelines to be used as a starting point for the development of a consensus document that reflects the views of all interested parties.
References
1. Bosely S. Scandal of scientists who take money for papers ghostwritten by drug companies. The Guardian, February 7, 2002.
2. Flanagin A, Rennie D. Ghostwriters: not always what they appear. JAMA 1995; 274(11):870–871.
3. Lagnado M. Haunted papers. Lancet 2002;359:902.
4. Yamey G. Drug industry writers propose code of ethical conduct. BMJ 2002;324:808.
5. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Nicholls MG, Hoey J, Hojgaard L, Horton R, Kotzin S, Nylenna M, Overbeke AJ, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB, Wilkes MS. Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. N Engl J Med 2001;345(11):825–827.
Competing Interests
I am a professional medical writer
Competing interests: No competing interests