You are here

Should ghost writers be given credit for their work or eliminated from science?

스네하 쿨카니 | 2013년12월2일 | 조회수 31,945

Ghost authorship has been one of the persistent problems in medical writing. The recent case involving Bruce Spiegelman from Harvard’s Dana Farber Cancer Institute whose findings were published by a non-existent author in the Elsevier journal Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications (BBRC) without his knowledge brought medical ghost writing into limelight yet again. Although this case has taken ghost writing to a new level altogether, the practice of hiring ghost writers has been a topic of much scientific debate.

Ghost writing is different from honorary authorship in the sense that authors who have little or no involvement in the study, such as a department head or a dean, are given credit as the authors of a paper. On the other hand, in ghost authorship, authors who have contributed significantly in the writing of the paper are not acknowledged. Thus, ghost writing is widely considered an unethical practice.

According to a ghost writer, although the clients sometimes want to acknowledge the contribution of ghost authors, pharmaceutical companies are against it. The corporate-funded ghost writers are paid to write manuscripts, which are approved internally and are then published in the name of some prominent scientists. Giving credit to a lesser known medical writer could make fellow researchers question the credibility of the research. Hence, such companies prefer to keep the identity of ghost writers a secret. Since ghostwritten papers are paid for, the opinion of the ghost writers and the authors whose name it is eventually published under may be biased. Some editors and authors feel that physicians and researchers who may use the published results on patients can unknowingly pose a threat to the patients’ health. Moreover, it’s a clear case of fraud when researchers publish a paper without actually authoring it. Hence, they feel ghost writing should be eliminated from science.

Some authors, however, are of the opinion that every manuscript uses some strategy to enhance the weight of its data. Ghost writing is also a way of enhancing the way research is presented to the world. In the article "Why Does Academic Medicine Allow Ghostwriting? A Prescription for Reform," author Jonathan Leo offers some explanation on why ghostwriting is “allowed” in academic medicine. He cites the example of a paper published by prominent psychiatrists wherein the publishers accepted and justified the involvement of ghost writers and declaring that "The book was reviewed for any potential bias (among other things) by eight independent reviewers, and there was no undue influence on the content from industry or any other outside source.” They opined that prominent researchers would not attach their name with fraudulent or low-quality research.

Ghost authorship is a complex problem and can be dealt with appropriately if editors, researchers, and medical companies work with consensus. A good way of tackling the issue of ghost writing would be to frame stringent journal author guidelines. Journal editors should ensure that papers are accepted after a thorough background check of the authors and any medical companies involved. Only good research should get published in keeping with the scientific ethics.

스크랩하기

해당 기사를 스크랩해보세요!

지식은 모두에게 함께 공유되어야 한다는 것이 에디티지 인사이트의 이념입니다. 해당 사이트에서 제공되는 모든 기사는 Creative Commons license로 재포스팅 및 스크랩이 가능합니다. 아래의 가이드라인만 유념해주신다면 언제든지 무료로 에디티지 학술 전문가의 지식을 가져가실 수 있습니다!


  • 주의 : 에디티지 학술 전문가들은 해당 콘텐츠를 만들기 위해 많은 시간과 노력을 쏟고 있습니다. 기사를 스크랩 및 재포스팅 하실 때는 명확한 출처를 남겨주시기 바랍니다.
  • 이미지 재사용: 이미지를 원본이 아닌 편집 재사용하실 때는 에디티지 인사이트의 허가가 필요합니다.

코드를 복사하셔서 기사 공유를 원하시는 사이트에 적용하시면 에디티지 인사이트 기사를 가장 쉬운 방법으로 공유하실 수 있습니다.
 
Please copy the above code and embed it onto your website to republish.

Comments