Confusion about Garfield: "Acknowledged Self-Archiving is Not Prior Publication"

The question here has nothing to do with copyright or contracts. It is an editorial policy -- the wisdom of rejecting research that was released prematurely -- by certain biomedical publishers. The critics all seek to "publish first" without regard to whether work has been reliably reviewed. It would be refreshing to have them admit it for once. Journal editors have the right to reject submissions for any reason including failure to respect their policies.

Airing this issue in the copyright forum only demonstrates how confused the advocates of unvetted preprints have become. My impression has been that their agenda is 'less spending for libraries' no matter what the cost to public health, the research community and those who earn their living as a benefit of copyright.

The journals that have followed this policy have been very successful in every sense. They are well-cited and highly regarded by authors and readers. Their imprimateur on an article is a mark of prestige. They are more than sound financially thanks to high circulation and robust advertising.

The policy, known as the "Ingelfinger rule" after the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, has survived despite numerous attempts to blacken it. The rule asserts that unvetted research claims may mislead the health community and the general public into ineffective if not unsafe practices.

Authors who wish to be published in presigious circumstances comply with the rule. They will not talk to news reporters or 'self-archive' [a misnomer] in advance of publication.

There is no doubt that circulating a paper on a welltrafficked  public preprint server is a form of publication, even if it does not meet the scholars' use of the term as denoting recognition and presentation by an established editorial board. The use of the term "archive" to describe the act of posting to a server acknowledges the intent to publish, in imitation of the long established "Archives of" group of journals.

The open archive movement is an arrogant attempt to raise the status of informal publication by according automated servers an invlated status. Its advocates crave to stand near to publishers whose art and skill depends on making a sophisticated series of judgments. The movement attempts to do so, of course, by mythologizing copyrights within the publishing process, promising authors the moon, and trading on the ignorance of the learned community (most of which could not run a candy store) about business. For example, the use of the term "archive" seeks to assure authors and readers that "archived" material is not ephemeral, in spite of the fact that drafts submitted to journal editors are often revised before formal publication or rejected outright. Preprints may be cited. Indeed, they are cited and may form the basis for new research and authorship as if they were formally published.

Critics of the embargo policy, all of whom compete with the policy for authors' attention, haven't a chance. With no standing with journals' editors, the critics would like to convince authors to boycott the journals, either by defying the policy or by shunning such journals in their submissions. Boycotts by authors are a joke. Authors are more interested in being recognized by established editors than in pursuing a utopian vision. Last May, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported: "Few of the 30,000 scientists who pledged to boycott journals that don't make their content free online after six months have actually followed through on that threat, and few journals have changed their ways."

Best wishes,

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000 <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com>

-------------Forwarded Message-----------------

> OK, so this whole discussion hinges on the contract
> definition of "publication," which can be clearly
> defined by contract language. Therefore, it has little
> to do with what the academic community believes
> "publication" means, so long as the publishers clearly
> define what "publication" means in their respective
> contracts.
>
> The point of your reply seems to indicate that this is
> not a copyright issue, but a contract issue. I think
> that will make your stance more pallatable to the
> members of this list - and should clarify to the
> publishers that they may want to revisit their
> contract language if they want to avoid hassles
> involved with enforcing their respective
> pre-publication rules.
>
> Thanks for clarifying.
>
> Keith
>
> > This is precisely why the copyright law's definition
> > of "publication"
> > has nothing to do with the researcher's definition
> > of publication, and
> > it was to the researcher's definition of publication
> > that Gene was
> > referring; that is the ONLY sense of publication
> > that has any relevance
> > whatsoever to what Gene was saying.
>
Received on Mon Sep 09 2002 - 22:30:24 GMT