In scientific publishing, the 1969 Ingelfinger rule originally stipulated that The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) would not publish findings that had been published elsewhere, in other media or in other journals. The rule was subsequently adopted by several other scientific journals, and has shaped scientific publishing ever since.[1] Historically it has also helped to ensure that the journal's content is fresh and does not duplicate content previously reported elsewhere,[2] and seeks to protect the scientific embargo system.[3]
The Ingelfinger rule has been seen as having the aim of preventing authors from performing duplicate publications which would unduly inflate their publication record.[4] On the other hand, it has also been stated that the real reason for the Ingelfinger rule is to protect the journals' revenue stream, and with the increase in popularity of preprint servers[5] such as arXiv, bioRxiv, and HAL many journals have loosened their requirements concerning the Ingelfinger rule.[6] In a defense of the policy, the journal said in an editorial that the practice discouraged scientists from talking to the media before their work was peer reviewed.[7]
The rule is named for Franz J. Ingelfinger, the NEJM editor-in-chief who enunciated it in 1969. An earlier version of the policy had been expressed in 1960 by Samuel Goudsmit, editor of the Physical Review Letters, but did not become as well known.[8]
^ "Ingelfinger rule definition". Medicine.net. 13 June 2000. Retrieved 2011-08-20.
^ Schachtman, NA (20 June 2014). "Selective Leaking — Breaking Ingelfinger's Rule". Schachtman Law Blog. Retrieved 2015-05-23.
^ Lariviere, V; Gingras, Y (2009). "On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980-2007)". arXiv:0906.4019 [physics.soc-ph].
^Heidary, Fatemeh; Gharebaghi, Reza (2021-05-31). "COVID-19 impact on research and publication ethics". Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Ophthalmology. 10 (1): 1–4. doi:10.51329/mehdiophthal1414. ISSN 2322-3219. PMC10460218. PMID 37641621. S2CID 236407601.
^ Borgman, CL (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: information, infrastructure, and the Internet. MIT Press. p. 99. ISBN978-0-262-02619-2.
Spain, A (26 February 2011). "Casting a critical eye on the embargo system: one year of Embargo Watch". Association of British Science Writers. Retrieved 2017-03-24.
Altman, LK (1996). "The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review–Part 1". The Lancet. 347 (9012): 1382–6. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)91016-8. PMID 8637347. S2CID 44524038.
Toy, J (2002). "The Ingelfinger Rule: Franz Ingelfinger at the New England Journal of Medicine 1967–77" (PDF). Science Editor. 25 (6): 195–198.
Harnad, S (2000). "Ingelfinger Over-Ruled: The Role of the Web in the Future of Refereed Medical Journal Publishing". The Lancet Perspectives. 356: s16. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)92002-6. PMID 11191471.
White, E (2014). "Why the Ecology Letters editorial board should reconsider its No vote on preprints". Jabberwocky Ecology.
Desjardins-Proulx, P; White, EP; Adamson, JJ; Ram, K; Poisot, T; Gravel, D (2013). "The Case for Open Preprints in Biology". PLOS Biology. 11 (5): e1001563. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001563. PMC3653830. PMID 23690752.
May 03, 2024
ingelfinger, rule, scientific, publishing, 1969, originally, stipulated, that, england, journal, medicine, nejm, would, publish, findings, that, been, published, elsewhere, other, media, other, journals, rule, subsequently, adopted, several, other, scientific,. In scientific publishing the 1969 Ingelfinger rule originally stipulated that The New England Journal of Medicine NEJM would not publish findings that had been published elsewhere in other media or in other journals The rule was subsequently adopted by several other scientific journals and has shaped scientific publishing ever since 1 Historically it has also helped to ensure that the journal s content is fresh and does not duplicate content previously reported elsewhere 2 and seeks to protect the scientific embargo system 3 The Ingelfinger rule has been seen as having the aim of preventing authors from performing duplicate publications which would unduly inflate their publication record 4 On the other hand it has also been stated that the real reason for the Ingelfinger rule is to protect the journals revenue stream and with the increase in popularity of preprint servers 5 such as arXiv bioRxiv and HAL many journals have loosened their requirements concerning the Ingelfinger rule 6 In a defense of the policy the journal said in an editorial that the practice discouraged scientists from talking to the media before their work was peer reviewed 7 The rule is named for Franz J Ingelfinger the NEJM editor in chief who enunciated it in 1969 An earlier version of the policy had been expressed in 1960 by Samuel Goudsmit editor of the Physical Review Letters but did not become as well known 8 See also editList of academic journals by preprint policy News embargo Network effectReferences edit Marshall E 1998 Franz Ingelfinger s Legacy Shaped Biology Publishing Science 282 5390 861 3 865 7 doi 10 1126 science 282 5390 861 PMID 9841429 Ingelfinger rule definition Medicine net 13 June 2000 Retrieved 2011 08 20 Schachtman NA 20 June 2014 Selective Leaking Breaking Ingelfinger s Rule Schachtman Law Blog Retrieved 2015 05 23 Lariviere V Gingras Y 2009 On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields 1980 2007 arXiv 0906 4019 physics soc ph Heidary Fatemeh Gharebaghi Reza 2021 05 31 COVID 19 impact on research and publication ethics Medical Hypothesis Discovery amp Innovation in Ophthalmology 10 1 1 4 doi 10 51329 mehdiophthal1414 ISSN 2322 3219 PMC 10460218 PMID 37641621 S2CID 236407601 Borgman CL 2007 Scholarship in the digital age information infrastructure and the Internet MIT Press p 99 ISBN 978 0 262 02619 2 Angell M Kassirer J 1991 The Ingelfinger Rule Revisited The New England Journal of Medicine 325 19 1371 1373 doi 10 1056 NEJM199111073251910 PMID 1669838 Lewenstein BV 1988 It s Not Really the Relman Rule ScienceWriters 36 2 17 18 Further reading editRelman AS 1981 The Ingelfinger Rule The New England Journal of Medicine 305 14 824 6 doi 10 1056 NEJM198110013051408 PMID 7266634 Spain A 26 February 2011 Casting a critical eye on the embargo system one year of Embargo Watch Association of British Science Writers Retrieved 2017 03 24 Altman LK 1996 The Ingelfinger rule embargoes and journal peer review Part 1 The Lancet 347 9012 1382 6 doi 10 1016 S0140 6736 96 91016 8 PMID 8637347 S2CID 44524038 Toy J 2002 The Ingelfinger Rule Franz Ingelfinger at the New England Journal of Medicine 1967 77 PDF Science Editor 25 6 195 198 Harnad S 2000 Ingelfinger Over Ruled The Role of the Web in the Future of Refereed Medical Journal Publishing The Lancet Perspectives 356 s16 doi 10 1016 S0140 6736 00 92002 6 PMID 11191471 White E 2014 Why the Ecology Letters editorial board should reconsider its No vote on preprints Jabberwocky Ecology Desjardins Proulx P White EP Adamson JJ Ram K Poisot T Gravel D 2013 The Case for Open Preprints in Biology PLOS Biology 11 5 e1001563 doi 10 1371 journal pbio 1001563 PMC 3653830 PMID 23690752 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Ingelfinger rule amp oldid 1210093634, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
