India and China can actually make credible threads that they just let their own companies break patents if Big Pharma doesn’t sell them drugs at prices they consider reasonable.
When it comes to reducing prices paid, if you look at the UK for example, they have politicians who care about the NHI budget being manageable. If drugs don’t provide enough benefits for the price they cost they don’t approve them, so there’s pressure to name reasonable prices.
Sure, but that doesn’t address why you think researchers in these countries would be so affected by American pharma that there aren’t enough people to do convincing studies that would affect American bottom lines. In other words, still the same thing: why you think there is evidence of a worldwide conspiracy.
Ghost authorship isn’t just putting a name on a paper to which you little contributed but also about the real authors not appearing on the paper. Ghostwriters are people who wrote something and don’t appear on the author list.
If a student goes to upwork, lets someone write him an essay, does a few minor changes, and then turns it in under their own name while leaving out the real author of the paper that’s seen as plagiarism by every academic department out there.
I don’t think that’s right. I think it would be considered academic dishonesty but not plagiarism per se, because for students the expectation for graded work is that they are submitting their own work (or work with fellow students in the same class, for some classes and types of work). However, for papers, works are supposed to be collaborative, so just having additional contributors isn’t itself a problem. The problem instead is that all authors are listed and all authors contributed. In terms of industry research, disclosure of industry links is another problem.
I looked up a few articles on the subject, and it really doesn’t seem like ghostwriting is plagiarism (though it depends on the definition and who you ask!), but it certainly can violate ethical codes or journal guidelines:
I think this is my last post on this thread. I’ve made several arguments that were ignored, because you seem to be in favour of raising new points as opposed to addressing arguments. I don’t think it’s quite a Gish Gallop, but unfortunately I also don’t have unlimited time, and I think I’ve already made a strong case here. Readers can make their own decisions on whether to update their beliefs, and feel free to get a last word in.
I looked up a few articles on the subject, and it really doesn’t seem like ghostwriting is plagiarism (though it depends on the definition and who you ask!), but it certainly can violate ethical codes or journal guidelines:
Whether or not you use the word plagiarism, it’s an ethical violation where people are paid money to do something in secret to further the interest of pharma companies.
What’s what conspiring in private to mislead the public is about. The ghostwriting case is one that’s well-documented. It’s evidence that a lot of conspiracy exists in the field.
I’ve made several arguments that were ignored, because you seem to be in favour of raising new points as opposed to addressing arguments.
Your argument is basically “if they have power to do X, why don’t they also have power to do Y”. The only way to address that is to get into the details of how the power works. That means making new points.
Sure, but that doesn’t address why you think researchers in these countries would be so affected by American pharma that there aren’t enough people to do convincing studies that would affect American bottom lines. In other words, still the same thing: why you think there is evidence of a worldwide conspiracy.
I don’t think that’s right. I think it would be considered academic dishonesty but not plagiarism per se, because for students the expectation for graded work is that they are submitting their own work (or work with fellow students in the same class, for some classes and types of work). However, for papers, works are supposed to be collaborative, so just having additional contributors isn’t itself a problem. The problem instead is that all authors are listed and all authors contributed. In terms of industry research, disclosure of industry links is another problem.
I looked up a few articles on the subject, and it really doesn’t seem like ghostwriting is plagiarism (though it depends on the definition and who you ask!), but it certainly can violate ethical codes or journal guidelines:
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/sounding-board/ethics-authorship-ghostwriting-plagiarism
https://www.turnitin.com/blog/ghostwriting-in-academic-journals-how-can-we-mitigate-its-impact-on-research-integrity
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2015/03/02/why-is-ghostwriting-not-always-considered-plagiarism/
I think this is my last post on this thread. I’ve made several arguments that were ignored, because you seem to be in favour of raising new points as opposed to addressing arguments. I don’t think it’s quite a Gish Gallop, but unfortunately I also don’t have unlimited time, and I think I’ve already made a strong case here. Readers can make their own decisions on whether to update their beliefs, and feel free to get a last word in.
Whether or not you use the word plagiarism, it’s an ethical violation where people are paid money to do something in secret to further the interest of pharma companies.
What’s what conspiring in private to mislead the public is about. The ghostwriting case is one that’s well-documented. It’s evidence that a lot of conspiracy exists in the field.
Your argument is basically “if they have power to do X, why don’t they also have power to do Y”. The only way to address that is to get into the details of how the power works. That means making new points.