Suppr超能文献

一次性作者:医药营销如何被医学学术文献所接受。

The Disposable Author: How Pharmaceutical Marketing Is Embraced within Medicine's Scholarly Literature.

出版信息

Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 Jul;46(4):31-7. doi: 10.1002/hast.576. Epub 2016 Apr 14.

Abstract

The best studies on the relationship between pharmaceutical corporations and medicine have recognized that it is an ambiguous one. Yet most scholarship has pursued a simpler, more saleable narrative in which pharma is a scheming villain and medicine its maidenly victim. In this article, I argue that such crude moral framing blunts understanding of the murky realities of medicine's relationship with pharma and, in consequence, holds back reform. My goal is to put matters right in respect to one critical area of scholarly interest, the medical journal publication. Pharma relies on peer advocacy to sell its wares to prescribing doctors. This is an arrangement in which clinicians' qualified colleagues, including "key opinion leaders," are recruited by pharmaceutical corporations and marketing agencies to deliver commercially expedient content to their professional fellows. Precisely how this practice works in the setting of publications is not well understood because ethicists studying the problem have made too much of the narrative of corporate villainy and medical victimhood. Accordingly, criticism of industry publications has been preoccupied with the crudely dishonest practices of ghostwriting, ghost authorship, and "ghost management," vices condemned as "dirty little secrets" perpetrated from "behind the scenes" with the connivance of academic "shills" or "guest authors," in contempt of standards set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. This account is appealing, and yet it is wrong or, at the very least, seriously incomplete, with only limited relevance to the actualities of contemporary industry practices. In truth, many commercial publications are not developed in secret but fashioned within a culture of open collaboration, where academic authors make substantial, independent contributions; pharmaceutical companies are showcased rather than hidden; and medicine's editorial standards assist rather than impede the workings of commerce.

摘要

制药公司与医学之间的关系的最佳研究已经认识到,这种关系是模糊的。然而,大多数学术研究都追求一种更简单、更畅销的叙述,即制药公司是一个狡猾的恶棍,医学是它的纯洁受害者。在本文中,我认为这种简单的道德框架阻碍了对医学与制药关系的模糊现实的理解,因此阻碍了改革。我的目标是纠正一个关键的学术研究领域的问题,即医学期刊出版。制药公司依赖同行的宣传来向开处方的医生推销其产品。这种安排是指临床医生的合格同事,包括“意见领袖”,被制药公司和营销机构招募,向他们的专业同行提供符合商业利益的内容。这种做法在出版物中的具体运作方式尚不清楚,因为研究这个问题的伦理学家对公司恶棍和医学受害者的叙述过于重视。因此,对行业出版物的批评一直专注于制药公司的不诚实行为,如代写、代笔和“代管理”,这些行为被谴责为“幕后”的“肮脏小秘密”,是在学术“枪手”或“客座作者”的纵容下,蔑视国际医学期刊编辑委员会设定的标准。这种说法很有吸引力,但却是错误的,或者至少是严重不完整的,与当代行业实践的实际情况只有有限的相关性。事实上,许多商业出版物并不是在秘密中开发的,而是在开放合作的文化中形成的,学术作者做出了实质性的、独立的贡献;制药公司得到展示而不是隐藏;医学的编辑标准有助于而不是阻碍商业的运作。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验