PLOS is a non-profit organization on a mission to drive open science forward with measurable, meaningful change in research publishing, policy, and practice.

Building on a strong legacy of pioneering innovation, PLOS continues to be a catalyst, reimagining models to meet open science principles, removing barriers and promoting inclusion in knowledge creation and sharing, and publishing research outputs that enable everyone to learn from, reuse and build upon scientific knowledge.

We believe in a better future where science is open to all, for all.

Journals
More Content
PLOS BLOGS Speaking of Medicine and Health
Browse all PLOS Blogs
Browse all PLOS Blogs

This Week in PLoS Medicine: Cost effective & accurate TB diagnoses; Ghostwriting perspectives

Michael Morris General

Image Credit: Nico Crisafulli

Four new articles were published this week in PLoS Medicine, including two fascinating Perspectives on the ghostwriting phenomenon in medical writing.

Madhukar Pai and colleagues conducted a cost-effectiveness study that shows sputum smear microscopy to be the most cost-effective test for active tuberculosis (TB) in India, and liquid culture plus microscopy to be more cost-effective for TB diagnosis than serological tests.

A systematic review and meta-analysis by Karen Steingart and colleagues confirms that commercially available serological tests do not provide an accurate diagnosis of tuberculosis.

Linda Logdberg, a medical ghostwriter for 11 years, provides a personal view of her former work and what she believes should be done about the problem of fraud in authorship.

Alastair Matheson argues that rather than obstructing industry, the current ICMJE authorship guidelines have become its preferred tool for misattributing authorship.

Remember you can comment on, annotate and rate any PLoS Medicine article and see the views, citations and other indications of impact of an article on that articles metrics tab.

Back to top