Source: https://journal.emwa.org/good-pharma/legal-remedies-for-medical-ghostwriting-imposing-fraud-liability-on-guest-authors-of-ghostwritten-articles/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:56:39+00:00

Document:
There are persistent concerns about the influence of the pharmaceutical and device industries on the medical literature, and particularly on the reporting of clinical trials, which can include the distortion of the true evidence base of medical interventions and overestimation of the clinical benefit of a drug used to treat patients.
Lemmens T. Leopards in the temple: restoring scientific integrity to the commercialized research scene. JL Med Ethics 2004;32:641–657.
Sismondo S. Ghosts in the machine: publication planning in the medical sciences. Soc Stud Sci 2009;39:171–198.
Matheson A. Corporate science and the husbandry of scientific and medical knowledge by the pharmaceutical industry. BioSocieties 2008;3:355–382.
Healy D, Cattell D. Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics. Br J Psychiatry 2003;183:22–27.
Ross JS, Hill KP, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA 2008;299:1800–1812.
Jureidini JN, McHenry LB, Mansfield PR. Clinical trials and drug promotion: Selective reporting of Study 329. The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine 2008;20:183–183.
Johnson KR, Lassere MND. Guest authorship, mortality reporting, and integrity in rofecoxib studies. JAMA 2008;300:900; author reply 904–906.
Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB, Phillips SG, Pace BP, et al. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 1998;280:222–224.
Moffatt B, Elliott C. Ghost marketing: pharmaceutical companies and ghostwritten journal articles. Perspect Biol Med 2007;50:18–31.
United States Senate Committee on Finance Ghostwriting in medical literature minority staff report, 111th Congress, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member. 2010. p.
Biagioli M. Rights or rewards? Changing contexts and definitions of scientific authorship. Journal of College and University Law 2000;27:83–108.
Edmond G. Judging the scientific and medical literature: some legal implications of changes to biomedical research and publication. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 2008;28:523–561.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. 509 U.S. 579 1993.
Lexchin J. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167–1170.
Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:454–465.
Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U, Gundert-Remy U, Ludwig W-D, et al. The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010;107:279–285.
Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U, Gundert-Remy U, Lieb K, et al. The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences: part 2: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on authorship, access to trial data, and trial registration and publication. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010;107:295–301.
Caplovitz A. Turning medicine into snake oil, how pharmaceutical marketers put patients at risk. Boston and Washington (D.C.): U.S. PIRG; 2006 .
McHenry LB, Jureidini J. Industry-sponsored ghostwriting in clinical trial reporting: a case study. Accountability in Research 2008;15(3):152–167.
Smith R. Lapses at the New England journal of medicine. J R Soc Med 2006;99:380–382.
Moffat B. Responsible authorship: why researchers must forgo honorary authorship. Account Res 2011;18(2):76–90.
Lacasse JR, Leo J. Knowledge of ghostwriting and financial conflicts-of-interest reduces the perceived credibility of biomedical research. BMC Research Notes 2011;4:27.
Rakes v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of America, 582 F.3d 886 (8th Cir 2009).
R. v. Théroux,  2 S.C.R. 5 [Canada]; Magill v. Magill, (2006) 231 A.L.R. 277 (HC) [Australia]; Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd (2005) [United Kingdom]; Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Aafloat Textiles (I) P. Ltd. 2009 (235) E.L.T. 587 (S.C.) [India].
Edmond G. Supersizing Daubert science for litigation and its implications for legal practice and scientific research. Villanova Law Review 2007;52:857–924.
Strom ex rel. U.S. v. Scios, Inc., 676 F. Supp.2d 884 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 1985.
Am. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Haroco, Inc., 473 U.S. 606 1985.
Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258 1992.
Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 128 S. Ct. 2131 2008.
R. v. Stoltz 84 C.C.C. (3d) 422 (B.C.C.A.) [Canada]; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath,  1 S.C.C. 1 [India]; McDonald v. McDonald (1965), 39 A.J.L.R. 179 (H.C.) [Australia]; Ul-Haq v. Shah , 1 All E.R. 73 (C.A.) [U.K.] 1993.
Johnson v Bell, 605 F.3d 333 (6th Cir 2010).
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 1944.
Hatch v. Ooms, 69 F. Supp. 788 (D.D.C.1947), rev'd sub nom. Dorsey v. Kingsland, 173 F.2d 405 (D.C. Cir. 1949), rev'd, 338 U.S. 318 (1949).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.