Thank you Mr. Henderson. If those are the policies
then I see no room for Mr. Hanard's arguments. How can
he claim that his so called "self-archiving" is not in
violation of those clearly stated policies?
Now, if he wants to argue that the policies are wrong,
that is another matter. But his position that
"self-archiving" is not a violation of those policies
seems ludicrous in the face of the clear language
below.
I appreciate you bringing the actual text of the
policies forward.
Keith
- Albert Henderson <chessNIC[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> 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,
>
=== message truncated ===
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com
Received on Thu Sep 12 2002 - 12:49:40 GMT