Jump to content

Ingelfinger rule: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Blew1000 (talk | contribs)
34 edits
Added info about Goudsmit version of rule
→top: bold the name of the article, mention The New England Journal of Medicine the first time the acronym appears
 
(36 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''Ingelfinger rule''' is an eponymous rule named after [[Franz J. Ingelfinger]], the ''[[The New England Journal of Medicine]]'' (''NEJM'') editor-in-chief who enunciated it in 1969. Editorials in most journals were published anonymously that time, so the paper was published without an author's name.<ref name=”NEJM_1969”>{{cite journal | vauthors = | title = Definition of "sole contribution" | journal = N Engl J Med | volume = 281 | issue = 12 | pages = 676-677| date = September 1969 | doi =10.1056/NEJM196909182811208 |PMID = 5807917 | URL= https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJM196909182811208}}</ref>. This rule - basically meant for [[scientific journal|scientific publishing]], was originally meant only for ''NEJM''. The rule was, that ''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.<ref>
In [[scientific journal|scientific publishing]], the '''Ingelfinger rule''' stipulates that ''[[The New England Journal of Medicine]]'' would not publish findings that had been published elsewhere, in other media or in other journals. Many scientific journals followed suit after it was first enunciated in 1969 by [[Franz J. Ingelfinger]]. (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.<ref>Bruce V. Lewenstein, "It's Not Really the Relman Rule," ScienceWriters (Newsletter of the National Association of Science Writers), Summer 1988, 36(2):17-18.</ref>) In a defense of the policy,<ref name="editorial">
⚫
{{cite journal
⚫
|last1=Angell |first1=M
⚫
|last2=Kassirer |first2=J
⚫
|date=1991
⚫
|title=The Ingelfinger Rule Revisited
⚫
|journal=[[The New England Journal of Medicine]]
⚫
|volume=325 |issue=19
⚫
|pages=1371–1373
⚫
|url=http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199111073251910
⚫
|doi=10.1056/NEJM199111073251910
⚫
|doi-access=free
⚫
}}</ref> the journal said in an editorial that the practice discouraged scientists from talking to the media before their work was peer reviewed.

The rule was subsequently adopted by several other scientific journals, and shaped scientific publishing ever since.<ref>
{{cite journal
{{cite journal
|last1=Marshall |first1=E
|last1=Marshall |first1=E
|year=1998
|year=1998
|title=Franz Ingelfinger's Legacy Shaped Biology Publishing
|title=Franz Ingelfinger's Legacy Shaped Biology Publishing
|url=http://science.sciencemag.org/content/282/5390/861.full
|journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]]
|journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]]
|volume=282 |issue=5390 |pages=861–3,&nbsp;865–7
|volume=282 |issue=5390 |pages=861–3,&nbsp;865–7
Line 24: Line 9:
|doi-access=free
|doi-access=free
|pmid=9841429
|pmid=9841429
}}</ref> Historically it has also helped to ensure that the journal's content is fresh and does not duplicate content previously reported elsewhere.<ref>
}}</ref> Historically it has also helped to ensure that the journal's content is fresh and does not duplicate content previously reported elsewhere,<ref>{{cite web
⚫
{{cite web
|author=
|date=13 June 2000
|date=13 June 2000
|title=Ingelfinger rule definition
|title=Ingelfinger rule definition
|url=http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13488
|url=http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13488
|publisher=[[Medicine.net]]
|publisher=[[Medicine.net]]
|accessdate=2011-08-20
|access-date=2011-08-20
|archive-date=2014-07-11
⚫
}}</ref> and seeks to protect the scientific embargo system which allows for more accurate reporting on study claims.<ref>
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140711164954/http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13488
|url-status=dead
⚫
}}</ref> and seeks to protect the scientific embargo system.<ref>
{{cite web
{{cite web
|last=Schachtman |first=NA
|last=Schachtman |first=NA
Line 39: Line 25:
|url=http://schachtmanlaw.com/selective-leaking-breaking-ingelfingers-rule/
|url=http://schachtmanlaw.com/selective-leaking-breaking-ingelfingers-rule/
|work=Schachtman Law Blog
|work=Schachtman Law Blog
|accessdate=2015-05-23
|access-date=2015-05-23
}}</ref>
}}</ref>


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.<ref>
⚫
The Ingelfinger rule has been seen as having the aim of preventing authors from performing [[double publication]]s which would unduly inflate their publication record.<ref>
{{cite arxiv
{{cite journal
|last=Lewenstein |first=BV
⚫
|year=1988
|title=It's Not Really the Relman Rule
|journal=ScienceWriters
⚫
|volume=36 |issue=2 |pages=17–18
}}</ref>

⚫
The Ingelfinger rule has been seen as having the aim of preventing authors from performing [[duplicate publication]]s which would unduly inflate their publication record.<ref>
⚫
{{cite arXiv
|last1=Lariviere |first1=V
|last1=Lariviere |first1=V
|last2=Gingras |first2=Y
|last2=Gingras |first2=Y
Line 50: Line 45:
|eprint=0906.4019
|eprint=0906.4019
|class=physics.soc-ph
|class=physics.soc-ph
}}</ref> 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 server]]s such as [[arXiv]], [[figshare]], [[bioRxiv]], and [[PeerJ|PeerJPrePrints]] many journals have loosened their requirements concerning the Ingelfinger rule.<ref>
}}</ref> 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 server]]s <ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Heidary|first1=Fatemeh|last2=Gharebaghi|first2=Reza|date=2021-05-31|title=COVID-19 impact on research and publication ethics|journal=Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Ophthalmology|language=en|volume=10|issue=1|pages=1–4|doi=10.51329/mehdiophthal1414|s2cid=236407601|issn=2322-3219|doi-access=free|pmid=37641621 |pmc=10460218}}</ref> such as [[arXiv]], [[bioRxiv]], and [[HAL (open archive)|HAL]] many journals have loosened their requirements concerning the Ingelfinger rule.<ref>
{{cite book
{{cite book
|last=Borgman |first=CL
|last=Borgman |first=CL
Line 59: Line 54:
|publisher=[[MIT Press]]
|publisher=[[MIT Press]]
|isbn=978-0-262-02619-2
|isbn=978-0-262-02619-2
⚫
}}</ref> 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.<ref name="editorial">
⚫
{{cite journal
⚫
|last1=Angell |first1=M
⚫
|last2=Kassirer |first2=J
⚫
|date=1991
⚫
|title=The Ingelfinger Rule Revisited
⚫
|journal=[[The New England Journal of Medicine]]
⚫
|volume=325 |issue=19
⚫
|pages=1371–1373
⚫
|doi=10.1056/NEJM199111073251910
⚫
|doi-access=free
⚫
|pmid=1669838
}}</ref>
}}</ref>


==See also==
==See also==
*[[List of academic journals by preprint policy]]
*[[News embargo]]
*[[News embargo]]
*[[Network effect]]
*[[Network effect]]
Line 69: Line 77:


==Further reading==
==Further reading==
⚫
*{{cite journal
⚫
|last1=Relman |first1=AS
⚫
|year=1981
⚫
|title=The Ingelfinger Rule
⚫
|journal=[[The New England Journal of Medicine]]
|volume=305 |issue=14 |pages=824–6
⚫
|doi=10.1056/NEJM198110013051408
⚫
|doi-access=free
|pmid=7266634
⚫
}}
*{{cite web
*{{cite web
|last=Spain |first=A
|last=Spain |first=A
|date=26 February 2011
|date=26 February 2011
|title=Casting a critical eye on the embargo system: one year of Embargo Watch
|title=Casting a critical eye on the embargo system: one year of Embargo Watch
|url=http://www.absw.org.uk/news-events/features/732-casting-a-critical-eye-on-the-embargo-system-one-year-of-embargo-watch
|url=http://www.absw.org.uk/news-and-events/features/casting-a-critical-eye-on-the-embargo-system-one-year-of-embargo-watch
|publisher=[[Association of British Science Writers]]
|publisher=[[Association of British Science Writers]]
|accessdate=2011-08-20
|access-date=2017-03-24
}}
}}
*{{cite journal
*{{cite journal
Line 85: Line 103:
|pmid=8637347
|pmid=8637347
|doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(96)91016-8
|doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(96)91016-8
|s2cid=44524038
⚫
}}
⚫
*{{cite journal
⚫
|last1=Relman |first1=AS
⚫
|year=1981
⚫
|title=The Ingelfinger Rule
⚫
|journal=[[The New England Journal of Medicine]]
⚫
|volume=305 |issue=14 |pages=824–6
|doi=10.1056/NEJM198110013051408
|doi-access=free
|doi-access=free
⚫
}}
⚫
|pmid=7266634
⚫
}}
*{{cite journal
*{{cite journal
|last1=Toy |first1=S
|last1=Toy
|first1=J
|year=2002
|year=2002
|title=The Ingelfinger Rule: Franz Ingelfinger at the New England Journal of Medicine 1967–77
|title=The Ingelfinger Rule: Franz Ingelfinger at the New England Journal of Medicine 1967–77
|url=http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/files/scienceeditor/v25n6p195-198.pdf
|url=http://cseditors.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/v25n6p195-198.pdf
|journal=[[Science Editor]]
|journal=[[Science Editor]]
|volume=25 |issue=6 |pages=195–198
|volume=25
|issue=6
|pages=195–198
}}{{Dead link|date=September 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
⚫
}}
*{{cite journal
*{{cite journal
|last=Harnad |first=S
|last = Harnad
|first = S
⚫
|year=2000
|title=Ingelfinger Over-Ruled: The Role of the Web in the Future of Refereed Medical Journal Publishing
|year = 2000
|title = Ingelfinger Over-Ruled: The Role of the Web in the Future of Refereed Medical Journal Publishing
⚫
|journal = [[The Lancet Perspectives]]
|url=http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/5941/2/harnad00.lancet.html
|volume = 356
⚫
|journal=[[The Lancet Perspectives]]
|volume=356 |page=s16
|page = s16
|doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(00)92002-6
|doi = 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)92002-6
|pmid = 11191471
⚫
|doi-access=free
|doi-access = free
}}
⚫
}}
* {{cite web
* {{cite web
|last=White |first=E
|last=White |first=E
Line 130: Line 145:
|year=2013
|year=2013
|title=The Case for Open Preprints in Biology
|title=The Case for Open Preprints in Biology
|journal=[[PLoS Biology]]
|journal=[[PLOS Biology]]
|volume=11 |issue=5 |pages=e1001563
|volume=11 |issue=5 |pages=e1001563
|doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001563
|doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001563
Line 137: Line 152:
}}
}}


{{Academic publishing}}
⚫
[[Category:Rules]]

⚫
[[Category:Publishing]]
[[Category:Academic publishing]]
[[Category:Academic publishing]]
[[Category:Medical research]]
[[Category:Peer review]]
[[Category:Peer review]]
⚫
[[Category:Rules]]
⚫
[[Category:1969 introductions]]

Latest revision as of 19:38, 17 September 2024

The Ingelfinger rule is an eponymous rule named after Franz J. Ingelfinger, the The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) editor-in-chief who enunciated it in 1969. Editorials in most journals were published anonymously that time, so the paper was published without an author's name.[1]. This rule - basically meant for scientific publishing, was originally meant only for NEJM. The rule was, that 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.[2] Historically it has also helped to ensure that the journal's content is fresh and does not duplicate content previously reported elsewhere,[3] and seeks to protect the scientific embargo system.[4]

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.[5]

The Ingelfinger rule has been seen as having the aim of preventing authors from performing duplicate publications which would unduly inflate their publication record.[6] 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 [7] such as arXiv, bioRxiv, and HAL many journals have loosened their requirements concerning the Ingelfinger rule.[8] 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.[9]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Definition of "sole contribution"". N Engl J Med. 281 (12): 676–677. September 1969. doi:10.1056/NEJM196909182811208. PMID 5807917.
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ "Ingelfinger rule definition". Medicine.net. 13 June 2000. Archived from the original on 2014-07-11. Retrieved 2011-08-20.
  4. ^ Schachtman, NA (20 June 2014). "Selective Leaking — Breaking Ingelfinger's Rule". Schachtman Law Blog. Retrieved 2015-05-23.
  5. ^ Lewenstein, BV (1988). "It's Not Really the Relman Rule". ScienceWriters. 36 (2): 17–18.
  6. ^ 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].
  7. ^ 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. PMC 10460218. PMID 37641621. S2CID 236407601.
  8. ^ Borgman, CL (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: information, infrastructure, and the Internet. MIT Press. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-262-02619-2.
  9. ^ 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.

Further reading

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingelfinger_rule&oldid=1246242284"