All articles

From the Guardian, more on the medical ghostwriting business. Drug companies use "publication planning agencies" to control what's written about their products, Elliot Ross writes. The agencies "target the most influential academics to act as authors, draft the articles, and ensure that these include clearly-defined branding messages and appear in the most prestigious journals." A medical ethicist calls it "an epistemological morass where you can't trust anything."

From ArsTechnica, a critique of recent reports from the margins of journalism, one attributing bee deaths to cell phone radiation, and the other accusing drug companies of covering up the cancer-curing properties of something called dichloroacetate. That neither report came from an especially prestigious outlet is beside the point, writes Jonathan M. Gitlin; gullible readers were likely still taken in. "No wonder the general public's science literacy is still so poor."

Who really wrote that medical journal article? Two posts from the Scholarly Kitchen archives examine medical ghost writers, the practice whereby professional writers are paid for unacknowledged work in scientific literature. "I believe I provide a service to those who need assistance presenting their findings to the scientific community," an anonymous ghost says in a Q&A. "If you have a great study but present it badly you won’t be seeing it anytime soon in NEJM."

Issuing their new guide as a PDF was the first sign that print remains their priority, Steve Buttry writes in his review of "10 Best Practices for Social Media" from the American Society of News Editors. Editors "remain afraid of social media," Buttry says. "Their need to control remains an impediment to innovation." On the guide's top 10 list of tips: "Break news on your website, not on Twitter." Buttry's revised version.