Three viewpoints are presented in the article. One contributor suggests that ghostwriting is scientific misconduct. A second contributor suggests that the extent of ghostwriting needs to be quantified and the impact assessed. Finally, it is suggested that ghostwriters can make a legitimate contribution but concealing the contribution is dishonest and unacceptable.
Action: Clinicians should be aware of the practice of ghostwriting. Clinicians should build a portfolio of trusted sources of information and assess the reliability of information different sources.
|« Aspirin reduces stomach cancer||MTRAC reject melatonin »|