Gagging for it

T. Delamothe

Found an issue? Give us feedback

BMJarrow_drop_down

BMJ

Article . 2009 . Peer-reviewed

Data sources: Crossref

https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj...

Article

Data sources: Microsoft Academic Graph

Gagging for it

descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article 29 Oct 2009 English Publisher:BMJJournal:BMJ, volume 339, pages b4444-b4444 (issn: 0959-8138, eissn: 1468-5833,

Copyright policy )

Authors: T. Delamothe;

doi: 10.1136/bmj.b4444

Gagging for it

- Summary
- Metrics

Abstract

First, the good news on transparency. Drug company Merck is following Eli Lilly’s lead by publishing details of fees paid to experts for speaking on behalf of the company or its products (doi:10.1136/bmj.b4409). GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer have promised to follow suit. If drug companies were also to publish details of grants made to patient groups, along with the raw data from their research studies, then truly we would have entered a golden age. The bad news on transparency is that certain NHS trusts’ idea of a golden age is one where tongues can be ripped out and mouths stitched up. Jonathan Gornall documents the …

Impact byBIP!

	selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	0
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Average
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Average
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Average