[GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata

[Clement-Stoneham Geraldine]

Danny,

Some journals like to control the way information is being published about new 
papers, and therefore impose a strict press embargo period (another embargo, 
nothing to do with green OA embargo period). This sometime referred to as the 
"Ingelfinger rule" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelfinger_rule).

All of this is well orchestrated, with a press pack made available so that 
coverage is reflecting accurately the research, and is advertised to authors as 
the added value offered by the publishers if they chose to submit their paper 
to them. This explains why you often see papers published in Nature, or 
Science, all making the headlines of daily press on the same day. The downside 
of course is that they do act as "gagging orders", which can make it tricky for 
researchers to talk about their research once the paper has been accepted, but 
not yet published (which can go for weeks/months).

One of the issues with the HEFCE requirement to add article metadata to a 
repository at the acceptance stage, was that this could inadvertently breach 
such publishers' embargo by release some (even if not much) information about 
the paper ahead of time. I believe this is what your researcher is concerned 
about. I am not sure that at this stage there is a way around it, but it would 
deserve a wider conversation. Less traditional journals such as eLife have 
deliberately done away with such embargo, and indeed encourage authors to 
discuss their research as soon as they wish, which seems to be better aligned 
with "open science" principles.

You'll find more details for the journal you named here

http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html
http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo
http://www.cell.com/cell/authors#prepub

and eLife's policy
http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/authors-the-media-and-elife

Best wishes
Geraldine


Geraldine Clement-Stoneham
Knowledge and Information Manager
Medical Research Council
Tel: +44 (0) 207 395 2272
Mobile: +44 79 00 136 319
geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk



This email may have a protective marking, for an explanation please see 
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Informationandstandards/Documentmarking/index.htm

We use an electronic filing system. Please send electronic versions of 
documents, unless paper is specifically requested.
_
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
_
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata

[Stevan Harnad]

1. HEFCE requires immediate deposit (not immediate OA). so it is not in
conflict with *Nature's* & *Science's* PR practices. (N has a 6-month
embargo

on OA; S has none

.)

2. In any case, the 3-month grace-period would have been plenty of time for
N & S to do their PR even if the HEFCE rule had been immediate OA (which it
is not).

3. This "Ingelfinger Rule " (designed to
enhance paid circulation, not to enhance access) is a rule better honored
in the breach: Very, very little good scholarship or science is done via PR
rather than substance, especially in the online era.

SH

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Clement-Stoneham Geraldine <
geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:

> Danny,
>
>
>
> Some journals like to control the way information is being published about
> new papers, and therefore impose a strict press embargo period (another
> embargo, nothing to do with green OA embargo period). This sometime
> referred to as the “Ingelfinger rule” (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelfinger_rule).
>
>
>
> All of this is well orchestrated, with a press pack made available so that
> coverage is reflecting accurately the research, and is advertised to
> authors as the added value offered by the publishers if they chose to
> submit their paper to them. This explains why you often see papers
> published in Nature, or Science, all making the headlines of daily press on
> the same day. The downside of course is that they do act as “gagging
> orders”, which can make it tricky for researchers to talk about their
> research once the paper has been accepted, but not yet published (which can
> go for weeks/months).
>
>
>
> One of the issues with the HEFCE requirement to add article metadata to a
> repository at the acceptance stage, was that this could inadvertently
> breach such publishers’ embargo by release some (even if not much)
> information about the paper ahead of time. I believe this is what your
> researcher is concerned about. I am not sure that at this stage there is a
> way around it, but it would deserve a wider conversation. Less traditional
> journals such as eLife have deliberately done away with such embargo, and
> indeed encourage authors to discuss their research as soon as they wish,
> which seems to be better aligned with “open science” principles.
>
>
>
> You’ll find more details for the journal you named here
>
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html
>
> http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo
>
> http://www.cell.com/cell/authors#prepub
>
>
>
> and eLife’s policy
>
> http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/authors-the-media-and-elife
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Geraldine
>
>
>
>
>
> *Geraldine Clement-Stoneham*
>
> Knowledge and Information Manager
>
> Medical Research Council
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 207 395 2272
>
> Mobile: +44 79 00 136 319
>
> geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk
>
>
>
>
>
> This email may have a protective marking, for an explanation please see
> http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Informationandstandards/Documentmarking/index.htm
>
> We use an electronic filing system. Please send electronic versions of
> documents, unless paper is specifically requested.
> _
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> __
>
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Instistence by researchers that we do not make metadata

[Stevan Harnad]

> On Nov 26, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Thom Blake  wrote:
> 
> Hello Stevan,
> 
> HEFCE does not require immediate OA but it does, very reasonably,
> expect immediate 'discoverability' on deposit (i.e. acceptance).
> This is where the conflict comes in. The 3 months should be enough
> time for publication but sadly this isn't always the case. 

Nope, it’s deposit of the full-text and “discoverability" of the metadata 
(Title, author, etc.) 
on acceptance (+ 3). Nothing whatsoever to do with the Ingelfinger Rule.

Difficult to understand how there can be misunderstanding of something so clear 
and simple.

Best wishes,

Stevan

> 
> All the best,
> Thom
> ​-- 
> Thom Blake
> Research Support Librarian
> Information Services
> University of York
> LFA/215 Harry Fairhurst Building
> Heslington, York, YO10 5DD
> +44 (0)1904 324170
> ORCID: -0001-5507-9738
> 
> 
> Web: www.york.ac.uk/library/info-for/researchers/ 
> 
> Email disclaimer: http://www.york.ac.uk/docs/disclaimer/email.htm 
> 
> 
> On 26 November 2015 at 17:21, Stevan Harnad  > wrote:
> 1. HEFCE requires immediate deposit (not immediate OA). so it is not in 
> conflict with Nature's & Science's PR practices. (N has a 6-month embargo 
> 
>  on OA; S has none 
> .)
> 
> 2. In any case, the 3-month grace-period would have been plenty of time for N 
> & S to do their PR even if the HEFCE rule had been immediate OA (which it is 
> not).
> 
> 3. This "Ingelfinger Rule " (designed to enhance 
> paid circulation, not to enhance access) is a rule better honored in the 
> breach: Very, very little good scholarship or science is done via PR rather 
> than substance, especially in the online era.
> 
> SH
> 
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Clement-Stoneham Geraldine 
>  > wrote:
> Danny,
> 
>  
> 
> Some journals like to control the way information is being published about 
> new papers, and therefore impose a strict press embargo period (another 
> embargo, nothing to do with green OA embargo period). This sometime referred 
> to as the “Ingelfinger rule” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingelfinger_rule 
> ).
> 
>  
> 
> All of this is well orchestrated, with a press pack made available so that 
> coverage is reflecting accurately the research, and is advertised to authors 
> as the added value offered by the publishers if they chose to submit their 
> paper to them. This explains why you often see papers published in Nature, or 
> Science, all making the headlines of daily press on the same day. The 
> downside of course is that they do act as “gagging orders”, which can make it 
> tricky for researchers to talk about their research once the paper has been 
> accepted, but not yet published (which can go for weeks/months).
> 
>  
> 
> One of the issues with the HEFCE requirement to add article metadata to a 
> repository at the acceptance stage, was that this could inadvertently breach 
> such publishers’ embargo by release some (even if not much) information about 
> the paper ahead of time. I believe this is what your researcher is concerned 
> about. I am not sure that at this stage there is a way around it, but it 
> would deserve a wider conversation. Less traditional journals such as eLife 
> have deliberately done away with such embargo, and indeed encourage authors 
> to discuss their research as soon as they wish, which seems to be better 
> aligned with “open science” principles.
> 
>  
> 
> You’ll find more details for the journal you named here
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html 
> 
> http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo 
> 
> http://www.cell.com/cell/authors#prepub 
> 
>  
> 
> and eLife’s policy
> 
> http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/authors-the-media-and-elife 
> 
>  
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Geraldine
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Geraldine Clement-Stoneham
> 
> Knowledge and Information Manager
> 
> Medical Research Council
> 
> Tel: +44 (0) 207 395 2272
> 
> Mobile: +44 79 00 136 319
> 
> geraldine.clement-stone...@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> This