We meant to run this story on Thursday when it first appeared – luckily it’s happened in the world of medical rather than legal publishing..
We ca’t imagine any law firm getting involved with Lexis in the same way another side of the Reed organisation arranged the following deal with Merck and other "unamed:" sponsors.
We’d have thought they would have learnt their lesson after the arms fair debacle in the UK .. now fake magazines sponsored by drug companies.. it certainly isn’t healthy.
And we do have to note that ground zero is Australia which doesn’t say much for Reed management there.. we wonder if heads will roll.
This is what library journal.com have to say
Elsevier Journal Scandal Provokes Significant Librarian Response
Elsevier admits total of six problematic publications; Progressive Librarians Guild issues call for action
Josh Hadro — Library Journal, 5/14/2009
Six "journals" with improperly disclosed sponsorship published between 2000 and 2005
Libraries did not collect the Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine
Progressive Librarians Guild calls for action from ALA, MLA
Since word of Elsevier’s publication of a "fake" journal sponsored by pharmaceutical company Merck spread last week, the company acknowledged the publication of five more journals with similar undisclosed sponsorship between 2000 and 2005. (This publication and Elsevier have the same parent company, Reed Elsevier.)
Merck’s financial backing of the Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine (AJBM) through Elsevier’s Excerpta Medica subsidiary came to light during testimony of a class-action lawsuit against the drug company, but fewer details of the other five titles are known. "Elsevier declined to provide the names of the sponsors of these titles," according to an article in The Scientist.
Elsevier statement
In a statement issued on Monday, CEO of Elsevier’s Health Sciences Division Michael Hansen said that the company’s Australian office had undertaken "an unacceptable practice," and expressed regret that the sponsoring companies’ backing of the publications were not properly disclosed. He continued:
We are currently conducting an internal review but believe this was an isolated practice from a past period in time. 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.
See the full story at:
