The Ingelfinger Rule is dead and buried. No publisher can require a researcher to keep their findings secret. They can report them at conferences and post their unrefereed preprints whenever they like.
(Authors can voluntarily comply with a press embargo on an accepted paper until publication, but that's irrelevant to HEFCE, which requires deposit within 3 months of acceptance: No *Nature* press embargo is anywhere near that long.) Harnad, S. (2000) Ingelfinger Over-Ruled: The Role of the Web in the Future of Refereed Medical Journal Publishing. Lancet Perspectives 256 (December Supplement): s16. http://cogprints.org/1703/ Closed access deposit of the author's final, accepted draft is absolutely none of the business of the publisher, has nothing to do with copyright, and certainly provides not the faintest of grounds for "pulling" a publication. Neither does public notice of a scientific conference and its papers (and abstracts). HEFCE and HEFCE authors: Steer the course. This kind of FUD has been floated for decades now and deserves your contempt, not your concern. Here are a couple of flashbacks from yesteryear: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#publisher-forbids http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#10.Copyright *Stevan Harnad* On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Danny Kingsley <da...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Hello all, > > Our latest blog on Unlocking Research is looking at the issue of press > embargoes. > > Below is a teaser from "Press embargoes – a threat from the shadows" - > https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=653 > > ******************************** > Something has been rumbling under the surface in the repository world > recently, at least in the UK. Over the past six months or so, the Office of > Scholarly Communication has had some fraught conversations with researchers > who are terrified that their papers will be 'pulled' from publication by > the journal. The reason is because some information about the upcoming > paper is publicly available. > > <snip> > > Our researchers are concerned that having the metadata about an article > available means that publishers will consider this a breach of embargo and > will pull the publication. Note that the Author’s Accepted Manuscript of > the article itself (or the data files, in case of datasets) is locked down > and the information about the volume, issue and pages are missing as the > work is not yet published. > > The researchers are worried because there is a need for publication in > high profile journals such as *Nature* for their careers and if a work > was to be pulled from publication this would have huge implications for > them. This has caused a challenge for us – clearly we do not wish to > threaten our researchers’ publication prospects, but we are also bound by > the requirements of the HEFCE policy. > <snip> > ************************* >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
