[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.166.3.44. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 542
Citations 0
Comment & Response
December NaN, 2013

Differential Diagnosis: Distinguishing Between Ghostwriting and Professional Medical Writing in Biomedical Journals

Author Affiliations
  • 1Hamilton House, Virginia Beach, Virginia
  • 2Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond
JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(22):2091-2092. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10420

To the Editor Ghostwriting is assumed to be widespread based on anecdotal reports, but the prevalence was 0.16% in a survey of 896 authors of articles published in 2008.1 We congratulate Bosch et al2 for studying this frequently misunderstood ethical issue, which suffers from a paucity of well- designed research. The aim of their survey was to assess the prevalence and content of ghostwriting policies in high-impact biomedical journals. We are concerned that their publication may further confuse this issue.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×