on Tue, 10 Sep 2002 Keith Tabor <ket354[_at_]yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the full explanation. Sounds like we are on
> the same page. This is not a matter of copyright law.
> I have no idea whether the Journals reduce their
> policies to a formal contract document signed by all
> parties, but the point is that they could. In the
> alternative, clarifying the wording of their policies
> to reflect that the ban against pre-publication
> extends to so called self-archiving would be a fairly
> simple matter. I believe this would take most of the
> wind out of Mr. Hanard's rhetorical sails - at least
> the current version.
I believe the policy has been clearly stated and
updated:
Ingelfinger, Franz J. 1977. Shattuck lecture --
the general medical journal: for readers or
repositories? [New England Journal of Medicine.
296:1258-64]. Lays out the "Ingelfinger Rule"
by which NEJM rejects research that has been
disseminated to the general public in
unevaluated form as an expression of concern
that it will be used indiscriminately and may
cause harm. SEE ALSO Kassirer and Angell, 1995.
Kassirer, Jerome P., and Marcia Angell. 1995.
The Internet and the journal. [New England
Journal of Medicine. 332:1709-10;
correspondence 333:1077-80] The NEJM policy is
to reject any research that has been disclosed
to the general public by any unreviewed medium,
including the Internet.
Savvy researchers are well aware of it.
Best wishes,
Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com>
- Albert Henderson <chessNIC[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> well-
> trafficked 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 Wed Sep 11 2002 - 10:13:39 GMT