Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Businesses The Media News

More Fake Journals From Elsevier 249

Posted by Soulskill
from the at-least-they're-consistent dept.
daemonburrito writes "Last week, we learned about Elsevier publishing a bogus journal for Merck. Now, several librarians say that they have uncovered an entire imprint of 'advertorial' publications. Excerpta Medica, a 'strategic medical communications agency,' is an Elsevier division. Along with the now infamous Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, it published a number of other 'journals.' Elsevier CEO Michael Hansen now admits that at least six fake journals were published for pharmaceutical companies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Fake Journals From Elsevier

Comments Filter:
  • Not true. (Score:5, Funny)

    by AltGrendel (175092) <ag-slashdotNO@SPAMexit0.us> on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:19PM (#27888985) Homepage
    According to their wikipeia entry, they are entirely legit.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:25PM (#27889045)

      Not anymore!

      • Re:Not true. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Z00L00K (682162) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @05:32PM (#27891509) Homepage

        Hmmm... "Funny" isn't what I would have modded...

        But this will in a few blows make all reviews related to the companies involved basically invalid.

        And it will also cast a dark shadow over a lot of other reviews in other medical magazines.

        I would recommend editors to remove all reviews currently for Merck products as well as all reviews provided by "Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine", "Excerpta Medica" and "Elsevier" just to be on the safe side until the sources of every review from those sources can be verified. And other reviews would have to be deeply scrutinized before added too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ScrewMaster (602015) *

      According to their wikipeia entry, they are entirely legit.

      True! And it's also interesting to note that according to its own entry, Wikipedia is also legit.

  • And... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ... not a damn thing will become of it because everyone who can do anything about it is in Merck's pocket.

    • Wrong (Score:4, Informative)

      by an.echte.trilingue (1063180) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:50PM (#27889249) Homepage
      No. At the very least, this gives schools a bargaining chip when negotiating journal packages with Elsevier.

      Also, anything that brings the sickening relationship between doctors and pharmaceutical companies to light is a good thing. Many times, doctors will prescribe the latest (expensive) drug to a patient when a generic does the job just as well precisely because the pharmaceutical companies bombard them with this kind of semi-false information. People need to be aware of this.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09, 2009 @01:15PM (#27889447)

        No. At the very least, this gives schools a bargaining chip when negotiating journal packages with Elsevier....

        There are few institutions which can or do afford all packages. Intead, they must choose one or the other. Like with the cable channels, the publishers aren't about to put all the "good" journals in one set and all the crap "journals" and advertisements in another.

        Some journals and, thus, packages become must-have. And journals in the other packages become sidelined. And, because journals specialize, you get the subsequent marginalization of various topics and even fields of research.

        That's on top of the veto power big business has on reearch funding. Remeber the US government may apportion grants, but since much of the money is coming from private business, it gets to select only from a subset of acceptable recipients and topics. e.g. OpenBSD: secure systems for less than the price of a cruise missile...

      • by mazarin5 (309432)

        doctors will prescribe the latest (expensive) drug to a patient when a generic does the job just as well

        If the solution even requires a generic... I went in for bronchitis, and I came out with a prescription for a generic antibiotic, and a prescription for Prilosec. When I looked it up later, it turned out to be a medication for heartburn! I also noticed that the logo was the same as the big, purple button on the lapel of the doctor's labcoat. :/

        • Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

          by scottv67 (731709) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @05:51PM (#27891661)
          >I went in for bronchitis, and I came out with a prescription for a generic antibiotic, and a prescription for Prilosec.

          Mazarin5, if you use Google to search for bronchitis and acid reflux, you will find pages that mention acid reflux as a possible cause for bronchitis. It's possible that the doc who treated you thought that your bronchitis was caused by GERD or stomach acid making its way up into your esophagus. He wasn't trying to give you random pills just to make the drug rep happy. There is a connection between acid reflux and bronchitis. I am not an expert on this topic so I encourage you to do your own research with Google.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by deraj123 (1225722)
            If the doctor does this without explaining to me what he's trying and why, there's a problem. Mine's pretty forthcoming when asked questions - if yours isn't, perhaps you should find a new doctor.
    • Re:And... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Froboz23 (690392) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @05:17PM (#27891385)
      I know one good thing that will come out of this. I'm blacklisting Merck.

      Before reading this article, I was neutral toward this company. I didn't really know much about them. But now I know they are not to be trusted. I will make my best effort to avoid using any of their drugs, and I will be wary if any doctor tries to prescribe a Merck drug to me. And more importantly, I will not own any of their stock. Just this week I was reviewing my stock portfolio to do some more dollar cost averaging into the market rebound. Merck is now purged from my portfolio, and I will keep an eye out for it in any index or mutual funds that I buy. They are now in the same list as Monsanto.

      I will also pass this article along to my fiends and co-workers. Hopefully they too will take this into consideration before buying their stock.

      The justification for not owning their stock is not just moral. It is an economic concern as well. If a company behaves this recklessly, it puts itself at economic risk, as already demonstrated by it's multi-billion dollar Vioxx recall.

      All major corporations are engaged in morally dubious behavior of one kind or another. But when it becomes this excessive and blatant, I have to draw a line.
  • I have a bad feeling that, as people start poking around, even more stories like this are going to be uncovered. Sure, Elsevier is admitting to six fake journals. What's the over/under for it being 20?

    Now, I wonder if Merck makes a drug to get rid of bad feelings like this. I'll have to check an Elsevier journal to find out.

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:29PM (#27889075) Journal
      Behold! [theonion.com]
    • Re:Bad Feeling (Score:4, Interesting)

      by causality (777677) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:40PM (#27889155)

      I have a bad feeling that, as people start poking around, even more stories like this are going to be uncovered. Sure, Elsevier is admitting to six fake journals. What's the over/under for it being 20?

      Now, I wonder if Merck makes a drug to get rid of bad feelings like this. I'll have to check an Elsevier journal to find out.

      I'm not a doctor or any sort of medical practitioner. So, the following is just my personal opinion.

      The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most corrupt industries in existence today. I actually find pharmacology quite interesting, especially the idea that physical chemicals can impact the nonphysical/intangible mind. Seeing the way this industry operates made me decide some time ago that I can't in any good conscience join up with them, fascinating though the subject may be.

      There is one simple principle here: pharmaceutical companies cannot make any profit from healthy people. That's why you have so many "designer diseases" like Restless Leg Syndrome. Just think about how many people you know who do not regularly take some sort of prescription medication; they are becoming a minority. No one really questions this. No one with any sort of media presence is asking whether the fact that the general population is getting sicker and not healthier indicates that our medical system is fundamentally broken. Of course, you don't have to be much of a thinking man to realize that the media is not your friend, otherwise they'd ask questions like this and would go wherever the facts lead them, monied interests be damned.

      I was in my doctor's office once and I asked his staff a question. I asked her why it is that pharmaceutical companies advertise prescription-only medicines to the general public, since after all you are supposed to ask your doctor what is wrong and have that doctor determine what medicine you need. There's little room in that process for brand recognition on the part of the patient. She flat-out told me "because the pharmaceutical companies RUN this entire industry". I salute the honesty of her answer. I was half expecting some sort of "party line" on that one.

      • Re:Bad Feeling (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anpheus (908711) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:45PM (#27889191)

        The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most corrupt industries in existence today. I actually find pharmacology quite interesting, especially the idea that physical chemicals can impact the nonphysical/intangible mind.

        Nonphysical intangible mind?

        Neurochemicals, man. Read about them. Any intro to psych course includes education on what a few of the major neurochemicals do and their role in defining who "you" are.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by causality (777677)

          The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most corrupt industries in existence today. I actually find pharmacology quite interesting, especially the idea that physical chemicals can impact the nonphysical/intangible mind.

          Nonphysical intangible mind?

          Neurochemicals, man. Read about them. Any intro to psych course includes education on what a few of the major neurochemicals do and their role in defining who "you" are.

          Why do people insist on giving me the most simplistic of answers, always with the assumption that I never once came across them in any research on the subject? I'm not trying to complain so much as to point out that it's not necessary.

          To say that "the entire mystery is completely rendered moot by the concept of neurochemicals!" is the same thing as saying "I am a materialist." If you are so inclined, and if you find that satisfying, then good for you. Not everyone subscribes to the materialist worldvi

          • Brain drugs. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by juuri (7678) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @01:26PM (#27889521) Homepage

            I equate the working of drugs for the brain much like our current understanding of gravity.

            We know it works. We can reproduce it in exacting detail. We can model other experiments based upon our expectations of the way it works. But when we get down to the tiny details and questions... we have no idea exactly HOW it works.

            The modern brain chemical industry is this way. Sure we know it is hitting up the "5HT" receptors but as to why that actually causes some effects in some and differing effects in others... well... uh... yeah.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by causality (777677)

              I equate the working of drugs for the brain much like our current understanding of gravity.

              That's a very interesting parallel. It also comes from the materialist perspective. What we get for it is a theory of gravitation that is irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. That alone should tell us that we are missing something fundamental and need to question all of our assumptions, all of the things that we "know to be impossible." Quantum mechanics itself tends to disregard cause-and-effect. An unstable

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                Look, this is the News for Nerds site. You're looking for the News for Mystics site. Perhaps Google can help you find it.

              • Re:Brain drugs. (Score:4, Insightful)

                by m50d (797211) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @05:09PM (#27891287) Homepage Journal
                There's something else we get for it, too. Most of our recent technological advances have been engineering breakthroughs. There has been little advancement of actual understanding by comparison.

                If you're trying to contrast this against history it's simply wrong. Of course most advancement is, always has been and always will be in engineering rather than in the fundamentals - but the rate at which fundamental physics has developed has been nothing short of astonishing by historical standards.

                In my personal (unqualified) opinion, the medical industry has its own version of this. We're getting better and better at modifying the system, at obtaining desired results by the introduction of chemicals, without increasing our understanding of what disease actually is, how it originates, and how it can be prevented.

                Again, yes, the "engineering" approach of trying a known chemical and seeing what it does advances much faster than the theory - but that's not to say the fundamental work has stagnated. We genuinely do know a lot more about disease than we used to.

                Nowhere is this more obvious than in psychiatry.

                In more ways than one. While the state of fundamental understanding in psychiatry is particularly poor, we have seen a lot of genuine progress.

                My evidence for this is very simple: if we understood these things, we should have a population that is getting healthier. Instead, we have a population that increasingly depends on medications because it is becoming sicker.

                And where's your evidence for that? Life expectancy is continuing to rise (we're expecting a "fast food bump", but that's hardly the fault of medicine, and I don't believe it's happened yet), and the fact that a condition is being treated doesn't mean it didn't exist before - e.g. PTSD is often described as a modern invention, but if one looks at contemporary descriptions of WWII soldiers, one can see a lot of very similar symptoms - they simply didn't get treated. It's hard to appreciate how much better our general quality of life is than that of even 50 years ago, because we adjust to what we're used to.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by bit01 (644603)

                You remind me of the three stages of technology:

                1. Simple, and doesn't do the job.
                2. Complex, and does the the job
                3. Simple, and does the job.

                Not a bad description. :-)

                Personally, I suspect that the reductionist worldview is at least partially responsible for that.

                Holistic, reductionist, it's all abstraction.

                We're human, with human limitations. To understand we have to abstract and that by definition is an approximation. Some people aren't happy with current abstractions/approximations but unfortunately they have

            • That was beautifully stated. Thanks!
          • "Since we don't have a fully scientific answer, it's magic! I don't know who broke into my car last night but since a 'materialist' account doesn't have an answer it must be the interdimensional greminlins!"

      • Dr. Thomas Szasz is one doctor who comes to mind who questions this, especially with respect to psychiatry. I'm sure there are others.
      • Re:Bad Feeling (Score:5, Insightful)

        by scottv67 (731709) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @01:01PM (#27889353)
        That's why you have so many "designer diseases" like Restless Leg Syndrome.

        I have been diagnosed with that "designer disease", you dickwad. How did the doctor determine that I have Restless Leg Syndrome (RLS)? I have had two sleep studies at a local hospital. During the studies, dozens of electrodes connected to my body monitored everything from my brain waves to the movement of my calf muscles. The summary reports from the sleep studies show that I shift between different stages of sleep much more frequently than "normal" people. While reviewing the results of the first sleep study with me, the doctor pointed to a section of the sleep stage vs. time graph and said that I moved my legs 66 times per hour and awoke 22 times per hour. I don't get restful sleep like "normal" people because my legs move while I am asleep. The sleep doc that I was working with did not fabricate those results just to sell me more Requip or Mirapex.

        Please stick your "designer disease" comment for RLS up your ass.

        Thank you,
        -Scott
      • Re:Bad Feeling (Score:5, Interesting)

        by langelgjm (860756) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @01:35PM (#27889575) Journal

        There is one simple principle here: pharmaceutical companies cannot make any profit from healthy people.

        They also can't make any profit off the majority of sick people in the world, either, because those people have no money. That's how you get situations like this:

        We found that, of 1393 new chemical entities marketed between 1975 and 1999, only 16 were for tropical diseases and tuberculosis. (Trouiller et al., "Drug Development for Neglected Diseases: a Deficient Market and a Public-Health Policy Failure." The Lancet 359, no. 9324 (June 22, 2002): 2188-2194.

        (Ironically, I got that through ScienceDirect). Yet while the pharma giants won't focus R&D on neglected diseases, they'll also lobby against any attempts to set up alternative incentive systems designed to stimulate research into those disease... probably too afraid that the alternatives will be more successful than the current patent system, and people will start to wonder why more drugs can't be developed that way.

        • I once borrowed an air purity analyser from a pharma company. The thing could print out reports on a little "credit card receipt" printer, and had a USB port for copying the results to a PC. The USB port was filled with silicone: not validated. So somebody was typing in the results by hand every day, because that was cheaper than validating the goddamn USB transfer. We stare us blind on the money going in R&D, but that is not where the real cost lies. The true cost is in the enormous amount of pape
          • by langelgjm (860756)

            Yes, R&D is not the only major cost involved with new drugs. Regulatory hurdles are enormous as well. However, PhRMA's own figures emphasize how expensive it is to do the research and development, along with how much research fails, etc.

            Even if you got rid of regulatory requirements completely, it would not reduce the price of new medicines to the point where it would be financially feasible for drug companies to focus on neglected diseases. This doesn't mean that they are evil - there is just no motiva

      • by Galaga88 (148206)

        That's why you have so many "designer diseases" like Restless Leg Syndrome.

        I just wanted to say that I've had a few *very* sporadic occurrences of RLS (when I was younger), but if it was something that I had to cope with on a regular basis, I'd consider it anything but a designer disease. Yes it's weird, but I don't think you can appreciate how actually disruptive it can be until you've actually had to cope with it.

      • Ah, everybody's favourite sport: Libelling the pharmaceutical industry. Especially funny in combination with the remarkable allegation that nobody seems to question its actions. I guess you spent the last ten years on a trek through the Kalahari?

        Having worked in this industry for most of my career, I have to say that I have yet to meet the corrupt pernicious vampires of legend. I have met quite a few idiots, and remarkable number of people who honestly try to combine helping people with running a business.

    • by Cylix (55374)

      Perhaps the more frightening truth revolves around discovering which medical journals are actually real?

    • by mikael (484)

      There was a similar story going around the conspiracy theory websites about a paper published by bentham.org relating to active thermitic material (flakes of paint that burn under intense heat).

      The Open Chemical Physics Journal [bentham-open.org]

    • I have a bad feeling that, as people start poking around, even more stories like this are going to be uncovered. Sure, Elsevier is admitting to six fake journals. What's the over/under for it being 20?

      Noticing a pattern here, I'd doubt, at a minimum, anything elsevier publishes with "Australasian" in the title

      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 [Medicine]

      Which is of course not to say that it's a codeword for "this journal is crap" and that every crap journal has it, just tha

  • by langelgjm (860756) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:25PM (#27889047) Journal

    Interesting. This militates against the argument that the "imprimatur" of a publisher always adds to a journal's legitimacy, and is one more reason to ditch money-grubbing publishers for open-access journals.

    That is really a huge blow to the reputation of Elsevier... of course they publish hundreds (thousands?) of journals, so in absolute terms maybe it is not that big a deal, but still...

    • by causality (777677) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:43PM (#27889177)

      That is really a huge blow to the reputation of Elsevier... of course they publish hundreds (thousands?) of journals, so in absolute terms maybe it is not that big a deal, but still...

      I think I've heard it said this way: "It doesn't take much arsenic to poison a well."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nurb432 (527695)

      Only takes one mistake to have your reputation decimated.

    • by Councilor Hart (673770) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:54PM (#27889291)
      Yes, it is a big deal.

      The problem is not that you lied to me. The problem is that I can no longer trust you.
    • by Animats (122034) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:56PM (#27889311) Homepage

      This militates against the argument that the "imprimatur" of a publisher always adds to a journal's legitimacy.

      It sure does. Especially since Elseiver has explicitly made that argument. Here's an official Elsevier position paper on open access [elsevier.com]: "By introducing an author-pays model, Open Access risks undermining public trust in the integrity and quality of scientific publications that has been established over hundreds of years. The subscription model, where the users pay ... ensures high quality, independent peer review and prevents commercial interests from influencing decisions to publish. This critical control measure would be rmeoved in a system where the author - or indeed his/her sponsoring institution - pays."

      That gives the open access movement a big boost. [earlham.edu].

    • by Goldsmith (561202) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:56PM (#27889315)

      Absolutely right. Even though Elsevier is huge and a fixture in scientific research, this is the kind of ethical breach that could lead to ruin for the company. As big as they are, the NIH is bigger and there are people there who do not appreciate these kinds of shenanigans. It is absolutely an argument for community based open-access journals. All that would have to happen is the NIH putting publication in such journals as a condition in their grants and librarians the world over would rejoice.

    • by sgt_doom (655561)
      "That is really a huge blow to the reputation of Elsevier... of course they publish hundreds (thousands?) of journals, so in absolute terms maybe it is not that big a deal,.."

      I would respectfully disagree. I believe LexisNexis is their American subsidiary, therefore EVERYTHING about LexisNexis is now suspect.

  • by msobkow (48369) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:28PM (#27889065) Homepage Journal

    The journals seem to be intended to mislead the reader into believing that research and reporting has been done which has not. Does that not constitute fraud? Would there not be an option to have the publisher and the pharmacorp charged with fraud?

    • by winwar (114053) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @06:06PM (#27891785)

      "The journals seem to be intended to mislead the reader into believing that research and reporting has been done which has not."

      But what if the research WAS done? Does the data/research meet the industry standards? As far as I can tell, it was. So there is no fraud

      How is this different from any other journal that arbitrarily decides what articles to publish?

      The whole point of medical research is to influence doctors.

  • I was watching a panel discussion/documentary show called "Amazing Discoveries!". They were talking about great properties of the "Powersauce bar" ("A bushel of apples packed in every bar, plus a secret ingredient that unleashes the awesome power of apples!)" and the dangers of the "Vita-Peach Health Block".

    But seriously, I don't see why this is so surprising. Infomercials have been around forever, masquerading as talk shows, documentaries, etc. This is just a print equivalent. I certa

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by mmaniaci (1200061)
      Scientific Journals cannot be compared to TV documentaries. I'm not familiar with many other fields, but the IEEE Spectrum [ieee.org] and ACM [acm.org] publish journals that are widely used as technical resources in engineering. Journals are not primarily a form of entertainment.
    • by Garabito (720521)

      These journals are not only printed media, but peer-reviewed scientific journals. They way scientist publish their findings and theories is through articles in this kind of journals, that get screened and reviewed by specialists of the field before publication; so anything published is supposed to have scientific merit.

      Of course, nothing prevents a business to set up an allegedly scientific journal that publishes serious-looking articles that push its products or agenda, but it wouldn't have a great impact

    • There's no reason to believe a "journal" is any more plausible or legitimate than a TV "documentary".

      That's certainly true - there are hundreds of "trash" journals out there. I seem to get most of them in the mail despite frequent attempts to not subscribe. Most people just toss them into the recycle bin. The "Austalasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine" sounds like one of those types. Still, it's fraud - Elsievier should be soundly thrashed and the relevant management should commit seppuku

  • by Khyber (864651) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Saturday May 09, 2009 @12:46PM (#27889205) Homepage Journal

    This is MAJOR fraud in the medical/pharmaceutical industry. Merck and Elsevier need to be shut completely down for this bullshit.

    Or, alternatively, start killing off Merck and Elsevier CEOs, NOW. Send the message that we will not tolerate this misleading information.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ScrewMaster (602015) *

      This is MAJOR fraud in the medical/pharmaceutical industry. Merck and Elsevier need to be shut completely down for this bullshit.

      Or, alternatively, start killing off Merck and Elsevier CEOs, NOW. Send the message that we will not tolerate this misleading information.

      Well, that's probably a bit extreme, but it's certainly true that lies of this magnitude can result in people being hurt or killed. This isn't a joke.

      • but it's certainly true that lies of this magnitude can result in people being hurt or killed.

        Which is not even relevant for those companies. They just calculate the price that it costs (risk assessment) and decide to go or not go with it.
        And apparently they already decided that it's worth it. Including the possibility of death.

        But I don't think they are any different from most big industries. whether it's oil, "food", cars, or whatever...

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      Or, alternatively, start killing off Merck and Elsevier CEOs, NOW. Send the message that we will not tolerate this misleading information.

      Ever notice that the people who talk this kind of shit aren't the kind of people out there getting the headshots?

      If you believe so strongly that we should kill people for this stuff, go forth and do it. Otherwise, please shut your pie hole. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world eating pudding in the dark, and I like pudding but that's not the dark future I was planning for.

    • While it is incredibly dishonest, your solution is extreme. Shut down Merck? Shut down Elsevier? Both companies do a lot of good (Yes, Merck does do a lot of good). These fake journals do not appear in MEDLINE, which means that researchers do not actually use them. Sure, Merck might use them to market to doctors but as someone who works in the health care field (not as a medical doctor), not finding a journal in MEDLINE is death for the journal. Why anyone would trust a journal they don't find in MEDLINE is
  • I was planning on possibly using Elsevier as a potential publisher for my book (They aren't my first choice, but they are in the list of publishers I'm going to send proposals to) Now, I'm not so sure. I wonder if the other divisions of the company are still reputable, since the TFA implies that this fraud was the work of only one division.
    • by bogaboga (793279)

      I don't know about corruption, but I can say that the affinity for money from Elsevier is about 9.999 on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest. It's way up there.

      Folks milked money from me while on a health care course to the extent that I was almost giving up. It's insane.

      One good thing for them is that they seem to be following trends in IT quite closely, so becoming irrelevant is something in the distant, distant future.

  • Isn't it about time the reputable scientific journals using Elsevier as a publisher started to look elsewhere?

  • Which is easier to forgive? The jealous man who violently kills another or the man who runs a company founded for the purpose of deceiving millions of people for profit?

    The deceit promoting drug makers wares often leads to the slow and painful deaths and disabilities of hundreds or thousands of people. The jealous man usually kills no more than one or two, one of which is typically himself.

    The evil of the paid liars are on par with the evil of those who use technological means to spam, steal and destroy t

  • I worked for them... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nerdofthunder (1551099) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @01:46PM (#27889671)
    I spent a few weeks working for them at one of their warehouses. In the employee manual there were dates for Christmas, and Christmas Eve. The dates were the 25 and 26 respectively. If they can't even get the dates for Christmas right at a text book publisher, I don't want to know what else they fail at.
  • Kalkofes Mattscheibe - Amira Tampon Werbung
    A skit about a Dr from the dark side of ww2 German medical experiments, trying to sell tampons in the 1950's
    Almost saying human trials in concentration camps, then correcting to "laboratory camp"
    This is how the world is going to think of peer reviewed US medical journals soon.
    Just another creepy doctor with a past trying to sell "medical communications"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwjoAlAqkhw [youtube.com]
  • Elsewhere Science (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gwjgwj (727408)
    I used to call them "Elsewhere Science". Has it turned out to be a correct description?
  • Poisoning The Well (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DynaSoar (714234) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @08:19PM (#27892707) Journal

    Everyone who has conducted legitimate science, or expanded their medical knowledge, based on reading and/or referencing the fake journals, has been disserviced. The false information has been passed along and may continue since not all readers/users could ever be located. Science and medicine have been poisoned by this, and the damage can multiply. The publisher should print a final edition of each, containing only one article, saying that all previous work printed there is suspect at best. The problem could be somewhat mitigated if the editors of every other journal reviewed the articles they've printed to see if they contain references to those journals, and request the author(s) examine them for possible revision removing same. When the authors are no longer reachable the editors should do it.

  • As somebody... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by drolli (522659) on Saturday May 09, 2009 @10:06PM (#27893257) Journal

    who has published something in an Elsevier Journal (they publish a lot of conference series), i am personnaly disappointed. I wonder if it is possible to retract that article and republish it somewhere else.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"

Working...