Scholarly journals exert considerable influence over how and whether scientists disseminate information about their research through the news media to the general public. Many journals use variants of the “Ingelfinger rule” to restrain scientists from disclosing research to journalists prior to publication. To allow reporters to develop stories before a journal article is printed, however, many journals distribute advance copies under an embargo system. Journal editors argue that these practices foster peer review and more accurate public dissemination of research findings. This article considers whether journal editors may also be using these controls on information flow to enhance the status of their publications, with an eye toward attracting better scientific papers, expanding circulation, and luring advertising.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Altman, L. K.1996a. The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review—Part 1. The Lancet347:1382-1386.
2.
Altman, L. K.1996b. The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review—Part 2. The Lancet347:1459-1463.
3.
Angell, M.1983. Multiple sclerosis and the Ingelfinger rule. New England Journal of Medicine308:217-218.
4.
Angell, M.
, and J. P. Kassirer. 1991. The Ingelfinger rule revisited. New England Journal of Medicine325:1371-1373.
5.
Antognini, J. F.1992. The Ingelfinger rule. New England Journal of Medicine326:958.
6.
Bartrip, P.W.J.
1990. Mirror of medicine: A history of the British Medical Journal. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
7.
A broken embargo
. 1995. Nature376:2.
8.
Burkett, D. W.
1965. Writing science news for the mass media. Houston, TX: Gulf.
9.
Cade, J. F.1993. Medical journals and the popular media. The Medical Journal of Australia159:568.
10.
Carmody, J.1994. The TV column. The Washington Post, 14 April, C6.
11.
Crawford, J. H.1962. Editorial. Applied Physics Letters1:51.
12.
Definition of “sole contribution.”1969. New England Journal of Medicine281:676-677.
13.
Dunwoody, S.1979. News-gathering behaviors of specialty reporters: A two-level comparison of mass media decision making. Newspaper Research Journal1:29-41.
14.
Dunwoody, S.1980. The science writing inner club: A communication link between science and the lay public. Science, Technology, & Human Values5:14-22.
15.
Entwistle, V.1995. Reporting research in medical journals and newspapers. British Medical Journal310:920-923.
16.
Ethiel, N.
, ed. 1995. Medicine and the media: A changing relationship. Chicago: Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation.
17.
Evans, W.1995. The mundane and the arcane: Prestige media coverage of social and natural science. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly72:168-177.
18.
Fishbein, M.
1969. Morris Fishbein, M.D.: An autobiography. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
19.
Fitzgerald, M.1986. AMA blacklists Miami Herald. Editor & Publisher 3 May, 11-12.
20.
Garfield, E.1986. Which medical journals have the greatest impact?Annals of Internal Medicine105:313-320.
21.
Garvey, W. D.
1979. Communication: The essence of science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
22.
Ginsparg, P.1994a. First steps towards electronic research communication. Computers in Physics8:390-396.
23.
Ginsparg, P.1994b. @xxx.lanl.gov. Los Alamos Science22:156-165.
24.
Goudsmit, S. A.1960. Publicity. Physical Review Letters4:1-2.
25.
Greenberg, D.1988. Scooped by its own petard. New Scientist, 10 March, 75.
26.
Grouse, L. D.1981. The Ingelfinger rule. Journal of the American Medical Association245:375-376.
27.
Gustafson, J. R.1995. Commentary. Science Writers, Summer, 25.
28.
Harnad, S.1990. Scholarly skywriting and the prepublication continuum of scientific inquiry. Psychological Science1:342-343.
29.
Harnad, S.1991. Post-Gutenberg galaxy: The fourth revolution in the means of production of knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review2:29-41.
30.
Harnad, S.1995a. Electronic scholarly publication: Quo vadis. Serials Review21:70-72.
31.
Harnad, S.
1995b. Implementing peer review on the net: Scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals. In Electronic publishing confronts academia: The agenda for the year 2000, edited by R. Peek and G. Newby, 103-118. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
Hattal, A. M.1993. Don't read this story—yet. American Journalism Review, October, 13.
33.
Horton, R. C.1995. Journals versus journalists. European Science Editing, no. 54:3-7.
34.
Hultén, O.
1984. Mass media and state support in Sweden. Stockholm: Swedish Institute.
35.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
. 1982. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Annals of Internal Medicine96:766-771.
36.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
. 1988. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Annals of Internal Medicine108:258-265.
37.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
. 1991. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. New England Journal of Medicine324:424-428.
38.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
. 1992. Statements on electronic publication and on peer-reviewed journals. Annals of Internal Medicine116:1030.
39.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
. 1993. Medical journals and the popular media. The Medical Journal of Australia159:281.
40.
International Steering Committee of Medical Editors
. 1979. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. British Medical Journal278:532-535.
41.
Jones, G.
, and A. J. Meadows. 1978. Sources and selection of scientific material for newspaper and radio programmes. Journal of Research Communication Studies1:69-82.
42.
Kassirer, J. P.
1993. Dissemination of medical information: A journal's role. In Doing more good than harm: The evaluation of health care interventions, edited by Kenneth S. Warren and Frederick Mosteller, 173-179. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
43.
Kassirer, J. P.
, and M. Angell. 1994. Violations of the embargo and a new policy on early publicity. New England Journal of Medicine330:1608-1609.
44.
Kassirer, J. P.
, and M. Angell. 1995. The Internet and the Journal. New England Journal of Medicine332:1709-1710.
45.
Krieghbaum, H.1941. American newspaper reporting of science. Kansas State College Bulletin25 (5):1-73.
46.
Kurtz, H.1991. Embargo dispute highlights scientific journals' influence on news. The Washington Post, 16 June, A10.
47.
Kutner, B. N.1988. Press embargoes and medical news. Archives of Ophthalmology106:879.
48.
Lewenstein, B. V. 1987. “Public understanding of science” in America, 1945-1965. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.
49.
Lock, S.
1986. A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. Philadelphia: ISI Press.
50.
Lock, S.1990. Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist: International co-operation among medical journals. Ugeskrift for Laeger152:3769-3771.
51.
Lundberg, G. D.1989. Providing reliable medical information to the public—caveat lector. Journal of the American Medical Association262:945.
52.
McBride, G.1981. Now for the latest news. Journal of the American Medical Association245:374-375.
53.
Molitor, F.1993. Accuracy in science news reporting by newspapers: The case of aspirin for the prevention of heart attacks. Health Communication5:209-224.
54.
Morrison, B.1995. So you want to win a Nobel prize?The New York Times Magazine, 1 October, 62-65.
55.
Nelkin, D.
1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Rev. ed.New York: Freeman.
56.
Pekow, C.1992. Breaking the pledge. Quill, November/December, 23-25.
57.
Perlman, D.1992. The Ingelfinger rule. The New England Journal of Medicine326:957.
58.
Phillips, D. P.1991. Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine325:1180-1183.
59.
Relman, A. S.1981. The Ingelfinger rule. New England Journal of Medicine305:824-826.
60.
Relman, A. S.1988a. More on the Ingelfinger rule. New England Journal of Medicine381:1125-1126.
61.
Relman, A. S.1988b. Reporting the aspirin study: The Journal and the media. New England Journal of Medicine318:918-920.
62.
Relman, A. S.1989. Medical research, medical journals and the public interest. Society of Research Administrators Journal21 (2):7.
63.
Roush, W.1995. “Fat hormone” poses hefty problem for journal embargo. Science269:627.
64.
Scott, J.1990. Medical journals: Eye on the scoop. Los Angeles Times, 26 February, A24.
65.
Smith, R. E.1970. Press and profession. The Lancet, 24 January, 148.
66.
Stacey, J.1985. The press embargo: Friend or foe?Journal of the American Medical Association254:1965-1966.
67.
Subscribing to Quadnet. 1997. Available online at http://www.quad-net.com/qnet_subscribe.html
68.
Taubes, G.1993. Publication by electronic mail takes physics by storm. Science259:1246-1248.
69.
Tunstall, J.
1971. Journalists at work: Specialist correspondents: Their news organizations, news sources and competitor-colleagues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
70.
Ubell, E.
, and P. Fraley. 1954. Report of the Committee on Release Time. Newsletter of the National Association of Science Writers2 (3):9.
71.
van Trigt, A. M.
, L.T.W. de Jong-van den Berg, F. M. Haaijer-Ruskamp, J. Willems, and T.F.J. Tromp. 1994. Journalists and their sources of ideas and information on medicines. Social Science and Medicine38:637-643.
72.
van Trigt, A. M.
, L.T.W. de Jong-van den Berg, L. M. Voogt, J. Willems, T.F.J. Tromp, and F. M. Haaijer-Ruskamp. 1995. Setting the agenda: Does the medical literature set the agenda for articles about medicines in the newspapers?Social Science and Medicine41:893-899.
73.
Wade, N.1981. Medical journal draws lancet on rival. Science211:561.
74.
Walsh, J.1980. Science in transition, 1946 to 1962. Science209:52-57.
75.
Warren, K. S.
, and F. Mosteller, eds. 1993. Doing more good than harm: The evaluation of health care interventions. Vol. 703 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
76.
Welch, J. A.1985. News embargoes. Presstime, August, 14-15.
77.
Whitehouse, D.1991. Time to ban the bans: Reaching breaking point with embargoes. New Scientist, 17 August, 48.
Wilk, J.1988. News service intends to break embargoes on medical reports. Boston Globe, 12 February, Metro 1.
80.
Wilkes, M. S.
, and R. L. Kravitz. 1995. Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors. Journal of General Internal Medicine10:443-450.
