The paper that wrote itself—A ghost story

We read with interest the article by Schüpbach and colleagues.1 What struck us was that its tone and content differ from what we are used to read in the scientific literature.

Hypothetical arguments are presented, focusing on possible advantages of implants from one DBS company compared with another. It is pointed out that “There are currently two commercially available systems” with directional leads and, without providing any patient data, the competitor of Boston Scientific is labeled as “problematic.” It “may not support the selection of the most advantageous field.” Another potential issue is “only explicitly controlled” with the system from Boston Scientific. The technique used by Boston Scientific “may be the preferred paradigm.”

Thus, it was our impression that this article shared common features, concerning style and arguments, with commercial advertisements from Boston Scientific.2

In the printed article, it is stated that there are no relevant conflicts of interest/financial disclosures. In “funding agency” it is reported that “The services of the medical writer were funded by Boston Scientific.” It is further acknowledged that “The draft manuscript was prepared by Deborah Nock (Medical WriteAway, Norwich, UK), with full revision and approval from all authors. Thanks are given to David Blum for additional writing and editorial support.”

The additional material online reveals that none of the 9 listed authors have contributed with anything except “review and critique” of the manuscript. Thus, conception, organization, execution, and the writing of the article was done by the medical writer funded by Boston Scientific and the person named David Blum. No further information or disclosures are given regarding David Blum. However, a Google search revealed that David Blum is employed by Boston Scientific and holds patents of possible relevance to the subject at hand.

Thus, none of the 9 listed authors have written the article and none of the 2 persons who have actually written the article is enlisted among the authors. The author guidelines for Movement Disorders requests that “a statement that no ghost writing by anyone not named on the author list must be included,” referring to an editorial.3 Here, the Editors write: “We are aware of medical writing enterprises that extend invitations to researchers to write articles on their behalf” and “reports that are completely or substantially composed by people not listed as authors fall into a vague but dangerous zone that threatens the credibility of authors and the journal that would print such matter.”

In this article, with its discussion on possible advantages of implants from Boston Scientific versus its competitor, it is problematic if a ghost writer from Boston Scientific is involved without mentioning anywhere his allegiance to this company.

Finally, it is stated under “relevant conflict of interests/financial disclosures” that the authors have “nothing to declare,” which contradicts the information provided online.

In summary, this publication breaches important guidelines for publication generally and in particular for Movement Disorders.

Author Roles

1) Research project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution; 2) Statistical Analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and Critique; 3) Manuscript: A. Writing of the first draft, B. Review and Critique.

P.B.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3B

M.H.: 1C, 3A, 3B

Full financial disclosure for the previous 12 months

M.H. is supported by the Parkinson Appeal UK and the Monument Trust. M.H. has received honoraria and/or travel expenses from Medtronic, St Jude, Boston Scientific, and Elekta for speaking at meetings. P.B. is consultant for Medtronic and Abbott and has received consultancy fees and honoraria/travel expenses for speaking at meetings. He is a shareholder in Mithridaticum AB.