Impact of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy on a secondary prevention population.

stantial contributions as well as ghost and guest authorship are intolerable and suspicious cases will be scrutinized using the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics.4 Although the relevant paragraph about the methodology of our study may be somewhat confusing if not read carefully, the ghostwriting policies we analyzed were defined as “rules or statements about the definition of, detection of, or procedures for responding to ghostwriting that explicitly used the terms ghostwriting or ghostwriter.”5(p920) Separately, we analyzed medical writer policies and policies requiring the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria (see e-Appendix [Data Abstraction Form] in the original Research Letter).5 I agree with Hamilton that, provided that their contributions are duly acknowledged, medical writers are not ghostwriters, and, certainly, research indicates encouraging progress. In 2009, Jacobs and Hamilton6 published the results of a survey aimed to evaluate the prevalence of ghostwriting among manuscripts written by professional medical writers (including freelancers and pharmaceutical, biotech, or medical device company employees). The survey showed that manuscripts with undisclosed contributions dropped from 62% to 42% between 2005 and 2008 and that medical writers who were aware of medical writing guidelines were less likely to ghostwrite. In their concluding remark, Jacobs and Hamilton6(p123) asserted that there is no room for complacency in the fight against ghostwriting, as the prevalence remains unacceptably high among EMWA [European Medical Writers Association] and AMWA [American Medical Writers Association] members.