Elsevier has skipped the impact factor to “Trust Factor”

Last week, I took this NYT article’s advice to heart: Do Everybody a Favor: Take a Sick Day. I actually ended up taking more than 1 sick day. While I admit I needed the break to recover, I missed some great news articles and I am still trying to catch up!

One of the interesting bit of news I missed that still has me questioning the “trust factor” is the recent issue with Elsevier’s fake journals.

Here are just a few of the recent articles and posts (in no particular order):

• Bob Grant, “Elsevier Published 6 Fake Journals.” The Scientist, May 7, 2009: From here it snowballed into a full blown issue and internet buzz topic.
• [NEWS] Merck disguised “marketing publication” as medical journal to help promote Vioxx, court hears from BMJ Latest Articles by Moynihan, R.
• Merck & Elsevier from the MHSLA Blog by Sandy Swanson: Short summary of the event with links to other resources.
• Elsevier*: An ethically responsible call to action from the Eagle Dawg Blog by Nikki: Great short post on the issue of ethics.
• Progressive Librarians Guild Calls for Elsevier to End Corrupt Publishing Practices and for Library Associations to Take Advocacy Role on Behalf of Scientific Integrity. No. 5.12.2009. 72.   From Librarian: Excellent summary of the entire event and wonderful call to action! This summarizes it best: “If it is not the responsibility of information professionals, what does it mean to say that we are advocates for our user-communities?”
• BMJ: It hit the other peer-reviewed journals: SOURCE: BMJ 2009;338:b1914
• [NEWS] Merck defends Vioxx in court, as publisher apologises for fake journal:  BMJ News summary.
• Merck goes to court, Elsevier apologizes: Nerdoc does an excellent job of summarizing the court case and implications of the case. Also from Nerdoc: Did Merck Publish a Fake Journal?
• Ethics and Publishing:  Michelle Kraft at the Krafty Librarian summarizes the issue and brings in some references to other similar previous issues.  Michelle is correct, how do we stop this going forward and how do we get these fake articles out of the current indexed literature?
• Merck’s Ghostwriters, Haunted Papers and Fake Elsevier Journals from Laika’s MedLibLog. The opening quote says it all: “What is the purpose of publications? (…) The purpose of data is to support, directly or indirectly, the marketing of our product.” [1, 2]”
• Threats to science-based medicine: Big pharma pays a publisher to produce a fake journal from Science-Based Medicine by David Gorski provides lengthy details about the case, tips for avoiding fake journals, reasons for quality journals & clinical trials, advice for physicians and others serving on boards, etc.

With all the news about Elsevier’s fake journals, I keep going back to the trust factor. I have seen others hinting around this topic: Krafty Librarian and Laika’s MedLibLog. Rachel recently hit on this topic after speaking to Elsevier representatives at MLA, A Brief Elsevier Note.  Elsevier is correct, although slow to admit and still in a form of denial, if people are questioning their “trust” then they have a major issue. I am questioning Elsevier’s “trust factor” or “reliability,” especially after seeing Laika’s post.

In Laika’s post the quote from the Medscape article about Clinical Therapeutics publishing fake articles on Fen-Phen stood out to me. I was not in the medical library field when all of this occurred and had not read the specifics on this issue until now. Also the fact that Elsevier created Excerpta Medica, almost in an attempt to distance themselves from the entire fiasco of not only the Fen-Phen articles, but did it again with the recent fake journal scandal. They committed the same fake articles with no disclosure twice! What’s worse, Clinical Therapeutics is on Pubmed and also sitting on my library shelves!

I have started reviewing many titles currently in the library (I have only been in my position for 1 year and I’m still reviewing some subscriptions), but this recent news about Elsevier and seeing what was done in the past makes me question all of Elsevier’s titles particularly Clinical Therapeutics. Should I trust Elsevier? Should I renew this title? Should I keep any of the past issues?

I am still pondering these questions, and maybe I am blowing it out of proportion, but it is still something to consider when evaluating renewals. Renewing this title, along with others, will be based on several factors:  patron usage; reliability of the journal; the new “trust factor” of the publisher; journal impact factor; and cost.  I have not made a decision and will continue to weigh these thoughts, but I do think Elsevier has an issue on their hands and has introduced a new issue into the world of publishing: the “Trust Factor.”

~Alisha Miles