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.
Hamilton CW. Differential Diagnosis: Distinguishing Between Ghostwriting and Professional Medical Writing in Biomedical Journals. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(22):2091–2092. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10420
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: