|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.218.199.14
In Reply to: RE: It hasn't been 'torn down'... posted by Ivan303 on July 24, 2014 at 11:36:37
Well I have published in a number of peer reviewed scientific journals both from the university and from big Pharma and I have seen nothing but a relatively fair peer review system in place... it may not be perfect but it is far far better than hifi reviewing.
Most of the real scientific journals live off institutional subscribers because subscriptions run in the thousands per year and advertising is minimal.
I don't think you can even begin to compare in the manner you are attempting to.
Follow Ups:
That's FUNNY.
Of COURSE the Pharmaceutical Industry has NO influence on what appears in peer review journals!
None WHATSOEVER!
If you have some kind of magic insider information please share. I have not experienced preferrential treatment in publishing when I have a big pharma address on my correspondence or if I had university address.
Now, I am not publishing clinical trials results or other medical related aspects. I am publishing on technical measurements made of the molecules that form the active ingredients in drugs.
Obviously in our world today there are influences but the magnitude of this is definitely open to debate. Like I said, direct advertising is not much of an avenue...at least in the journals I publish in.
There are also "free" periodicals available and these run off the advertisement model. The articles in them are often from industry and either not peer reviewed or only lightly reviewed. Maybe these are what you are thinking of? I use those periodicals as a source of new information about what is the latest thing going on and not much else.
so that tells you all you need to know. =:-0And as far as those journals which publish medical research, as much of that research, at least here in the US, is now corporate funded, guess who decides what gets published?
In fact, here in the US, Big Pharma even decides what gets researched, what gets published and even what gets presented at the big meetings (or as you might say in Europe, the big 'Congresses'). OK, I've never seen a case where they tried to block a poster session, but out of the thousands of posters presented at a big meeting, what's the chances of anyone seeing one outlier?
Case in point: In the mid 1980's Big Pharma managed to keep data from being published, or even presented at meetings of gastroenterologists, which suggested that many if not all ulcers were caused by helicobacter pylori. Why? Guess what class of medications were the biggest money-makers for Big Pharma at that particular time?
Those medications continued to be the largest selling and biggest money makers for Big Pharma until the mid 90's when the NIH finally was forced to act and recommend antibiotic rather than big buck prescription anti-acid therapy for ulcers.
Edits: 07/27/14
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: