The paper that wrote itself—A ghost story

The above correspondence deals with two important editorial issues that need further discussion and clarification from the journal’s perspective. First is the issue of ghostwriting. The journal allows, encourages, and may even facilitate suggestions to and correction of articles by medical editors. This needs to be clearly revealed on submission, explaining the role of the medical editor in the article preparation, the source of funding, and explicit confirming that the article is primarily written by the author(s) and not by the medical editor. In the case of the article by Schüpbach et al, all of the above were accomplished. The question raised by Blomstedt and Hariz about the role of authors in the actual writing of the article has been addressed in the reply letter by Schüpbach et al. Second is the very important issue of authors’ relationships with companies marketing a given product. Currently, commercial companies develop the majority of projects assessing novel drug therapies and technological advances, such as the one discussed by Schüpbach et al. Thus, most key opinion leaders and researchers will inevitably have some degree of interaction with commercial companies. This is not an issue per se. The critical point is to reveal such relationships when publishing an article such as the Viewpoint by Schüpbach et al. In this instance, the authors failed to disclose that a company had actually covered the expenses and organization of the meeting from which the article originated. That information should have been explicitly indicated in both the article and the covering Letter to the Editor on submission. Authors have now stated that the actual meeting content and discussions were free of commercial bias. The fact that a person who is currently working for the same company had also corrected the article should have also been communicated as part of complete transparency, but we also understand that interactions between scientists working for a given company and academics are commonplace nowadays. Nevertheless, we consider these serious omissions that passed unnoticed. I have discussed these issues with the editorial team and publisher, the chairperson of the Oversight Publication Committee, and the president of the Movement Disorder Society. We realize that Schüpbach and his colleagues have a wellrecognized academic trajectory, are highly respected colleagues, and have an excellent record of appropriate conduct in managing their research projects and academic and clinical responsibilities. We also agreed that the responses provided to the Letter from Drs. Blomstedt and Hariz are satisfactorily clear and recognize the omissions. I would like to stress that revealing to the journal and readership one’s conflicts or potential conflicts of interest are an obligation of the authors. We rely on authors for such declaration. Neither Movement Disorders nor any other journal can police authors to reveal their relationships and conflicts of interest. Science on the whole and publication in particular depend on the integrity of the main actors. I trust that the experience commented on here will illuminate for all of us the potential problems and emphasize the need to release all relevant information regarding the preparation and generation of an article. Jose A. Obeso, Chief Editor