Response archive

This page includes a full listing of all GAPP news items and responses. We also include links to articles if available.
2017
30-Nov-2017: An editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal called for clear presentation of study findings. We agree with the editorial and point out the role that professional medical writers can play in assisting with this goal.  24-Aug-2017: A commentary article in the Hong Kong Medical Journal paints authors as being passive victims in the development of industry-funded articles. We cite the joint position statement from AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP on the Role of Professional Medical Writers to clarify how professional medical writers behave, and also cite evidence of the benefits that professional medical writing support brings 09-Aug-2017: An editorial in the Blood Cancer Journal calls for banning industry-funded professional medical writers as a mechanism for avoiding financial conflicts of interest. GAPP cites the joint position statement from AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP on the Role of Professional Medical Writers to counter the allegations presented by the authors. We also point out where the authors misrepresent the literature they use to support their arguments. 30-Jun-2017: An article about "Fake medical news" in MedPage Today referred to "professional ghostwriters" and other publication practices in an inaccurate and out of date way. We posted a comment on the article, restricting ourselves to the section on publication practices, bringing some current evidence based "factuality" to readers for context. 2016
30-Sep-2016: ISMPP, AMWA, EMWA and GAPP post a joint and final comment to Alastair Matheson's BMJ article 15-Sep-2016 An article in the European Journal of Cancer attempts to quantify the levels of honorary and ghost authorship in reports of randomized clinical trials in oncology. GAPP points out that their definition of ghost authorship, which includes declared medical writing assistance, is not uniformly accepted and not consistent with definitions made by the ICMJE and the Council of Science Editors (CSE). As a result, we suggest that the prevalence of ghost authorship suggested in this study is artificially inflated. The authors also assert (without evidence) that medical writers are likely to write in a way that meets sponsor approval. We cite evidence from the GPS evidence that 93% of unethical requests are withdrawn after medical writer intervention. 15-Sep-2016 GAPP responds to another article from Alastair Matheson in the BMJ again misinterpreting ICMJE authorship criteria as barring medical writers from being authors, and accusing the pharmaceutical industry of "rebranding ghostwriting" to their own ends. Our response focuses on two of his points – the definition of ghostwriting that he takes issue with was based on the ICMJE guidelines, not industry promotion, and his assertion that medical writers leverage undue influence on content is not supported by evidence or professional practice. 25-Apr-2016 GAPP responds to a debate article in BMC Medical Ethics critiquing the ICMJE recommendations in the context of commercial bias in industry-sponsored publications. Our main points cover the contention of the author that the ICMJE supports ghostwriting (they don't), that the ICMJE criteria bar medical writers from authorship (they don't), that the current criteria allow contributors to avoid the responsibility of authorship (they don't) and we finish by suggesting that the author's "direct working knowledge of industry practices" are not in line with current ethical publication practices.
Update: as we received Alastair Matheson's response to this comment after 4 months, and after publication of our comment on the article above, we withdrew the comment as redundant, explained our actions on PubMed Commons and directed readers to the BMJ correspondence. 15-Jan-2016 In response to a commentary on ghost and guest authorship in Pain Medicine, GAPP thanks the authors for recognizing that professional medical writers have a legitimate role in scientific paper development as long as their involvement is transparent. We go on to cite some more recent and relevant literature, including GPP3, that supports the role of the professional medical writer in contributing to the development of trustworthy medical publications. 7-Jan-2016 GAPP applauds an editorial in Urologic Oncology sharing an editor’s considerations in publishing industry-sponsored studies, but citing GPP2 and the old ICMJE authorship criteria. In a letter to the editor, we describe the updates in GPP3 and the addition of the 4th authorship criterion to the ICMJE recommendations, and cite evidence from the MPIP and GPS surveys showing that publication professionals assist authors in keeping abreast of guidelines and ethical publications practices.
  • Available online
  • Green OA will be posted 18-Feb-2017
7-Jan-2016 GAPP responds to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer that criticizes the disclosure of professional medical writing support and industry funding in a peer-reviewed article. GAPP confirms that all disclosures meet with current guidelines. 2015
9-Sep-2015 GAPP contacts Respiratory Care to suggest clarification on the ghostwriting terminology used in their instructions for authors. 13-Aug-2015 GAPP contacts Springer about the recently published Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics that included a chapter on ghostwriting by Sergio Sismondo. GAPP was concerned by a number of assertions made in this chapter and were disturbed to see the apparent citation bias, ignoring recent and relevant peer-reviewed publications on this topic, including the only systematic review on ghostwriting. 22-Jul-2015 GAPP offers to assist the Smithsonian Institutes in their planned updates of their ethics and disclosure policies, from the perspective of publication and authorship ethics.
  • No response
14-Jul-2015 GAPP responds via Twitter to an article claiming ghostwriting "is not rare", citing old and anecdotal "evidence". GAPP tweets "Another article citing anecdote over evidence on the prevalence of ghostwriting http://bit.ly/1CrkTuj Evidence here http://bit.ly/1HkME3A"
  • Twitter
6-Jul-2015 GAPP responds to Richard Lehmann's blog article casting doubt on the role of named authors in a paper with full disclosure of medical writing support. We reiterate authorship criteria and clarify the role of the medical writer as distinct from that of a byline author.
28-Jun-2015 GAPP responds to Policy and Medicine blog article supporting the American Medical Students Association's (AMSA) outdated definition of ghostwriting on their industry relationship scorecard. We clarify the definition of ghostwriting and emphasise it is not just an industry issue, encourage AMSA to update the Ghostwriting and Honorary Authorship domain of the scorecard to help its members gain a more complete, current, and evidence-based understanding of this issue.
  • Response acknowledged, but not published
22-May-2015 Article in the Journal of General Internal Medicine about the prevalence of primary guest and ghost authorship uses a unique definition. GAPP applauds a paper apparently showing a decrease in the prevalience of guest authorship, but points out that the definition used is not comparable with other studies and would potentially inflate the prevalence.
26-Mar-2015 Editorial in Home Healthcare Now focuses on an earlier article about prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in nursing publications. GAPP thanks the editor for making readers aware of ICMJE, clarifies differences between ghost authorship (unacceptable) and writing assistance (acceptable if disclosed), and encourages authors to comply with best practices.
  • Text not available
15-Feb-2015 Publishing blogger Iva Cheung advocates leaving academic writing to experts but refers to ghostwriting and shows lack of awareness of acknowledgement guidelines. GAPP appreciates the recommendation that professional communicators may help resolve incomplete reporting of biomedical research. We reiterate that  ghostwriting is neither prevalent nor current practice, and that a framework for appropriate acknowledgement of those who do not fulfil authorship criteria already exists.

2014
3-Oct-2014 PLoS "Speaking of Medicine" blog editor implies that the Wyeth-DesignWrite case is representative of current practice and is commonplace. GAPP responds by presenting recent evidence about the impact of professional medical writers on publication development and points out the (r)evolution in ethical publication practices since the Wyeth-DesignWrite days. 1-Oct-2014 GAPP notes concerns about the SAGE Publishing instructions (Multiple Sclerosis journal), including failure to distinguish professional medical writers from ghostwriters to the publishing editor. SAGE responded with a promise to distinguish between ghostwriters and professional medical writers, with a thank you for "raising our attention to this issue"
  • Text not available
24-Jul-2014 GAPP praises the Enago editing blog for raising the issues of guest and ghost authorship to their readers. We introduce them to ICMJE criteria and assert that there are no valid reasons to condone either honorary or ghost authorship or ghostwriting in that context.
26-Jun-2014 Gabriel and Goldberg writing in the International Journal of Health Services imply that ghostwriting is common and current, with no supportive evidence. GAPP responds on PubMed Commons by citing evidence that the prevalence of ghostwriting is small and decreasing, and refers to guidance from WAME and ICMJE about the ethical use of professional medical writers. 03-Mar 2014: GAPP congratulates the authors of an article in JAMA addressing the practical aspects of data sharing. 1-Mar-2014 GAPP responds to article in Scottish Universities Medical Journal conflating ghostwriting and medical writing by differentiating between the two and provides evidence that ghostwriting is not common – neither among medical writers nor in medical publishing. 28-Jan-2014 GAPP responds (via PubMed Commons) to Lancet article that highlights need for better reporting, but doesn't recommend the use of professional medical writers. GAPP cites evidence supporting ethics and value of writers. 22-Jan-2014 GAPP responds to BMJ debate re. journals should not publish industry research. We challenge statement that ghostwriting is common and list 9 initiatives (eg, CMPP, GPS) underway to promote ethical publication practices.Jan 2014 GAPP publication in Trial (lawyers' journal) distinguishes ghostwriters from professional medical writers and highlights initiatives (eg, GPP3) to enhance best practices.

2013
9-Dec-2013 GAPP congratulates Bosch et al on their survey, but disagrees that journals don't take ghostwriting seriously. Not distinguishing professional medical writers from ghostwriters weakens their survey findings. (letter to editor -JAMA Intern Med)
6-Dec-2013 Unsuccessful attempt to have GAPP banned! GAPP responded to an article about medical writers aimed at basic scientists, which recommended that basic scientists should refuse medical writing assistance. GAPP explained why refusing medical writing assistance was not an evidence-based or reasonable course of action.10-July-2013 GAPP agrees with Almassi's assessment that ghostwriting is unethical and defines frequently confused terms. (letter to editor - Bioethics)
  • Text unavailable
July 2013 GAPP was invited to provide a counterpoint to an article implying that authorship misconduct was an "industry problem". GAPP highlighted that misconduct occurs in academia and industry, and described recent changes industry has made to enhance publication practices.
6-Mar-2013 GAPP applauds Marcus and Oransky for considering challenges of determining authorship and defines "substantial contribution." 6-Mar-2013 GAPP makes a comprehensive, evidence-based submission to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry on Clinical Trials, stressing how professional medical writers can help address publication problems 6-Mar-2013 GAPP challenges ACRE statements about medical writers and gains recognition from ACRE about the value and integrity of professional medical writers. Jan - 2013 GAPP describes its mission and its accomplishments during its first year. 2012
 7-Dec-2012 GAPP requests changes to the Instructions to Authors from the Journal of the American Geriatric Society to clarify that professional medical writers are not ghostwriters.  12-Nov-2012 GAPP agrees with Ben Goldacre on condemning ghostwriting, but rebuts assertion that AMWA, EMWA, and ISMPP are "ghostwriters' associations"! 12-Nov-2012 GAPP Editorial contribution in Current Medical Research & Opinion - financial model to demonstrate how use of professional medical writers could improve results reporting. 12-Nov-2012 Online response to BMC Research Notes article by Lacasse et al on undisclosed corporate authorship. 20-Sep-2012 Response challenging authors' assertion that professional medical writers must strive to "please" marketing departments. 26-Mar-2012 GAPP Letter to Editor American Journal of Medicine - evidence for benefits from use of professional medical writers. 15-Mar-2012 GAPP suggests changes to Instructions for Authors for Ophthalmology (letter). 16-Feb-2012 GAPP responds to Forbes CardioBrief Editor's questions (website comment). 14-Feb-2012GAPP supports full disclosure of editing and writing assistance (website comment). 14-Feb-2012 GAPP/Retraction Watch #3: reinforcing IFPMA statement on industry need to publish results of clinical trials, 13-Feb-2012 GAPP/Retraction Watch #2: value of professional medical writers in promoting publication, 12-Feb-2012GAPP/Retraction Watch #1: value of professional medical writers vs. ghostwriting. 3-Feb-2012GAPP supports U North Carolina ban on ghostwriting (website comment). 29-Jan-2012 GAPP Launch press release
Site powered by Weebly. Managed by netnerd.com