RE: Posting manuscripts on the internet

Georgia Harper <GHarper[_at_]utsystem.edu> commented:
>
> I am very concerned about APA's "information" as it is misleading and
> somewhat intimidating. If I were a university faculty member, I would
> be even more concerned about it. Is there really something so different
> about the medical community that distinguishes its written research
> findings from academia in general and that justifies this approach? If
> not, this approach illustrates why the university community must start
> acting like its work belongs to it, by taking a more active role in the
> management of copyrighted works that are created by faculty on its
> campuses.

Are you suggesting that APA does not represent the best interests of their members, the profession, and the general public?

The main justification for what NEJM calls the "Ingelfinger Rule" against premature dissemination has been to insure that a fully vetted presentation -- correct and complete -- is in print, for the use of professionals, when news of scientific progress is made public. The Internet can make premature material more accessible to unqualified readers than ever. I, for one, am fully in favor of making sure that peer review has done its job before health columnists start making recommendations to the public. This certainly applies to many areas of psychology; probably not to computing machinery.

Albert Henderson, Editor, Publishing Research Quarterly 70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com Received on Wed Oct 23 1996 - 21:06:48 GMT