On Fri, 25 May 2001, Tabah Albert wrote:
> I am wondering whether you know of any physics journal that imposes the
> Ingelfinger rule. I mean, aside from Science or Nature, such as
> Physical Review Letters, etc.
I hope others in this Forum will be able to reply. All I know is that
the APS journals definitely do NOT impose the Ingelfinger Rule. Indeed,
APS has the most enlightened and advanced copyright policy of any
established refereed journal today (i.e., other than the newest free
online-only journals).
ftp://aps.org/pub/jrnls/copy_trnsfr.asc
Science and Nature should not be tarred with the same brush, however.
Nature's current embargo policy is more advanced and enlightened than
Science's regarding the Ingelfinger Rule (although Ellis Rubinstein of
Science magazine did indicate informally at a meeting last year that
Science would probably soon be following suit).
Tenth International Conference of Science Editors, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil August 27-30, 2000
http://www.bireme.br/ifse-rio/I/programme.htm
I append at the end of this message a prior discussion of this topic on
this list.
See also:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#6.1./
> I have been doing some thinking about the contradiction between the
> visibility obtained from posting preprints on the web and the
> imposition of the Ingelfinger rule by high quality journals and whether
> the rule that is supposed to ensure high quality and the citations that
> come with it does not punish those who try to obtain visibility and
> citations prior to the formal publication of their works.
You are quite right. It does. And it needn't. And there is no
justification for it. And the Ingelfinger Rule can and should be ignored
by authors. (Unlike copyright restrictions, which can be successfully
circumvented legally by give-away authors, the Ingelfinger Rule is not
even a legal matter but merely an arbitrary journal policy, like
declining to publish papers by authors who have maternal relatives who
are blue-eyed...)
Harnad, S. (2000) Ingelfinger Over-Ruled: The Role of the Web in
the Future of Refereed Medical Journal Publishing. Lancet
Perspectives 256 (December Supplement): s16.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.lancet.htm
Harnad, S. (2000) E-Knowledge: Freeing the Refereed Journal Corpus
Online. Computer Law & Security Report 16(2) 78-87. [Rebuttal to
Bloom Editorial in Science and Relman Editorial in New England
Journal of Medicine]
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.scinejm.htm
http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind00&L=september98-forum&F=l&S=&P=2436
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Diana Deutsch wrote:
> I just noticed that you listed Nature as a journal that does not have
> embargo policies. However, they write in their Instructions to
> Contributors that authors need to state with their submissions that the
> work they report has not been disseminated in any way (for example, no
> press releases). Recently I decided not to submit a recent finding to
> Nature for publication, because the work had received considerable media
> attention following a talk I gave at a meeting of the Acoustical Society of
> America, and a lay-language version that the ASA (indeed a branch of the
> enlightened AIP) posted for this meeting.
>
> I'd be grateful if you had any information about
> Nature's 'real' policy on this.
It seems to me that based on Nature's own announced Embargo Policy
<
http://www.nature.com/author/embargo.html>, you had no reason not
to submit it to Nature anyway:
Nature does not wish to hinder communication between scientists.
For that reason, different embargo guidelines apply to work that
has been discussed at a conference or displayed on a preprint
server and picked up by the media as a result. (Neither
conferences nor preprint servers constitute prior publication.)
Our guidelines for authors and potential authors in such
circumstances are clear-cut in principle: communicate with other
researchers as much as you wish, but do not encourage premature
publication by discussion with the press (beyond your formal
presentation, if at a conference).
Science's policy is much more regressive insofar as online self-archiving
of preprints is concerned, and that difference is crucial here:
<
http://www.sciencemag.org/misc/con-info.shtml#prior>
Science will not consider any paper or component of a paper that
has been published or is under consideration for publication
elsewhere. Distribution on the Internet may be considered
previously published material and may compromise the originality
of the paper as a submission to Science.
However, they too are reasonable when it comes to inadvertent press
coverage of a conference by the media.
In addition, the main findings of a paper should not have been
reported in the mass media. Authors are, however, permitted to
present their data at open meetings but should not overtly seek
media attention. Specifically, authors should decline
participation in news briefings or coverage in press releases and
should refrain from giving interviews or copies of the figures or
data from their presentation or from the manuscript to any
reporter unless the reporter agrees to abide by Science's press
embargo. If a reporter attends an author's session at a meeting
and writes a story based only on the presentation, such coverage
will not affect Science's consideration of the author's paper.
I might add that I see nothing objectionable about Nature and
Science's press embargos: Authors should not seek press coverage for
unrefereed findings. But there is zero justification for trying to
prevent the online self-archiving of unrefereed preprints for
fellow-researchers. (And, a fortiori, less than zero justification for
trying to prevent the online self-archiving of REFEREED reprints, which
Science also does. I am not sure what Nature's current policy is on
this.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stevan Harnad harnad_at_cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Science harnad_at_princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
Computer Science fax: +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southampton
http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01):
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
You may join the list at the site above.
Discussion can be posted to:
american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org
Received on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:17:43 GMT