« Morning Smoke: Congressional Staffers Collected Money from Former Employers after Arriving on the Hill | Main | Crime of the Century? Judge Approves $3.4 Billion Settlement for More Than 100 Years' Worth of Bungled Royalty Payments to Native Americans »

Jun 22, 2011


Kimberly Goldin, Executive Director, ISMPP

Posted on behalf of the ISMPP Board of Trustees:

We agree entirely with Lemmens's view that tools must be used to support best practices. There have been past instances of poor practice which have prompted the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) and other professional organizations such as the American and European Medical Writers Associations (AMWA and EMWA) to develop additional guidance aimed to improve the standard of research reporting. Today a number of tools and/or guidance documents are available, including GPP2[1] and ISMPP's recently updated Code of Ethics [2], which requires accuracy, completeness, fair balance in medical publishing and considers product promotion in medical literature to be inappropriate.

ISMPP is committed to raising awareness and continuing education of best practices that must guide the profession, as evidenced by the launch of the Certified Medical Publication Professional credential. We are also continuing efforts to create new and more detailed tools to support application of best practices, while continuing to advocate that all medical writing assistance and its funding source is clearly acknowledged. . We are eager to partner with other societies and organizations working to fulfill the parallel goals of transparency and good professional ethics in medical publishing.

1. Graf C, Battisti WP, Bridges D, et al. for the International Society of Medical Publication Professionals. Good publication practice for communicating company sponsored medical research: the GPP2 guidelines. BMJ 2009;339:b4330.

2. ISMPP Code of Ethics. 2010. http://www.ismpp.org/ISMPP%20CODE%20OF%20ETHICS%2011_10.PDF last accessed 20 May 2011


Seems to me the person who signed the article should be held responsible for what was published. Not the writer.
If, in the future, someone sues a publication for misinformation. How many academics would be willing to continue this course? A doctor in court would sweat profusely if he were forced to claim authorship for something that brought harm. Or confess to plagerism.

The comments to this entry are closed.