As mentioned in my previous blog post, ghost writing is a sad global development in academia. In fact, it is not only global in scope – meaning very widespread – but also international in dimensions, in the sense that impoverished students and graduates in certain parts of the world are writing for others who can afford it elsewhere. The supply and demand coexist and there are writers’ “factories” out there fuelled partly by the massification of higher education.
Many of the ghost writing stories one finds on the Web are U.S. related, but there are also reported cases from elsewhere. UK-based A-level students apparently hire writers locally and internationally, from places as far as Canada, Egypt, Romania, India and Pakistan. Chinese academics, as well as students, buy papers to boost their publication lists, as reported in 2010 by the BBC ("Chinese Academia Ghostwriting 'Widespread'"). More recently, Chinese students in New Zealand universities came under suspicion when a service catering to them was identified, yet it has been argued that they have been targeted out of racism and xenophobia as they are not the only ones using such services (“Ghost Writing is Ubiquitous”). Similarly, students in Russia have been reported to buy not only academic papers but entire degree certificates as well.
In this blog entry, the ghosts are smiling because they do not realize the seriousness of the problem. One “senior corporate marketeer” interviewed by the Bangkok Post admitted some guilt, saying that if she were to think hard about what she was doing, she would stop it – but she doesn’t give it much thought (“Lost for Words”). A former ghost writer interviewed by the same newspaper said he decided to stop because he realized it was wrong – he had been simply helping lazy students - though he finds nothing wrong with “editing” work. Other than writing essays, some in Bangkok, as elsewhere, write statements of purpose for students applying to universities, claiming the students are bright but linguistically deficient, while others label the latter as “rich and stupid”.
Euphemisms abound with regard to ghost writing. Besides “editorial work” for students, there are the more serious cases, such as those of medical publications impacting public health, with “guest authors” or “honorary authors”. The
marketing of the drug Vioxx, for example, which was withdrawn in 2004, has been linked to such writers. In the worst case medical scenarios, a poorly tested drug is marketed after ambitious, well-known medical specialists have been invited to put their names on articles relating to clinical trials they have not been involved in. The drugs are then sold with little or no reference to possible side effects, let alone confirmation of actual efficacy. Public health disasters follow, and the authorities are alerted only when it is too late. Reuters has used the euphemism of “omission from a published study's author list of a person who substantially contributed to the work”; other sources have used the term “invisible author”, to show that the real authors are not the same as those whose names, legally speaking, should not be on the articles.
What can be done globally to combat ghost writing? The role of language teachers in university courses is limited as the problem is not simply a language matter; still, university faculty members should remain on the alert, actively encouraging proper writing practices. The medical examples illustrate serious corruption, in academia and elsewhere, as well as conflicts of interest requiring prompt attention and legal action. The interest of universities in advancing knowledge for the benefit of humanity (while assessing people's work fairly) clashes in these cases with the interest of the businesses involved (such as pharmaceuticals) in making profit quickly and, unfortunately, unscrupulously in some cases.
