Talk:Pharmaceutical marketing
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pharmaceutical marketing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 1095.5 days |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bkovit.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Untitled
Why does the Skeptical Inquirer citation not link to the actual source? Rather, it is another Wiki article. Bkovit (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Marketing budget "far exceeds" R&D
I hear this claim a lot, but the sources given don't link to a primary source of info. One commonly cited source on the web is this BBC article, but it no longer shows the table: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223 ...but I found the data at archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20141119101441/https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223 As a source, it just says a GlobalData study, but no link.
This article relies on industry self-reporting (though the data was given to Congress, so probably isn't an outright lie): https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2019/7/do-biopharma-companies-really-spend-more-on-market
I've removed these references:
- NYT link doesn't say anything about R&D vs marketing spending: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/opinion/sunday/no-justification-for-high-drug-prices.html
- This source https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18982834/ cites https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058136 (Waxman) as the source of 'marketing over R&D', but that article just states how much is spent relative to medical education: "The pharmaceutical industry spends more than $5.5 billion to promote drugs to doctors each year — more than what all U.S. medical schools spend to educate medical students. Major drug companies employ about 90,000 sales representatives — one for every 4.7 doctors in the United States, according to the American Medical Association."
- The text of this is behind a paywall: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18713478/
Also, the Skeptical Inquirer link is only available to subscribers: https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/03/drug-therapy-hype-the-misuse-of-data/
More review and sources would be good. (I forgot to sign my comment.) Unclevinny (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
4.2 plagiarism
While I do not have any better information, the first three paragraphs of section "Regulation and fraud", subsection "United States", are lifted almost verbatim from the New York Times. As a student attempting to find more information, it was frustrating to not only use another computer to circumvent the paywall, but to also find the exact same text I had just read. 163.11.62.69 (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- C-Class Marketing & Advertising articles
- Low-importance Marketing & Advertising articles
- WikiProject Marketing & Advertising articles
- C-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine articles
- C-Class pharmacology articles
- High-importance pharmacology articles
- WikiProject Pharmacology articles