| 词条 | Ingelfinger rule |
| 释义 |
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 such as arXiv, figshare, bioRxiv, and PeerJPrePrints many journals have loosened their requirements concerning the Ingelfinger rule.[5] 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.[6] 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.[7] See also
References1. ^{{cite journal |last1=Marshall |first1=E |year=1998 |title=Franz Ingelfinger's Legacy Shaped Biology Publishing |url=http://science.sciencemag.org/content/282/5390/861.full |journal=Science |volume=282 |issue=5390 |pages=861–3, 865–7 |doi=10.1126/science.282.5390.861 |doi-access=free |pmid=9841429}} 2. ^{{cite web |author= |date=13 June 2000 |title=Ingelfinger rule definition |url=http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13488 |publisher=Medicine.net |accessdate=2011-08-20}} 3. ^{{cite web |last=Schachtman |first=NA |date=20 June 2014 |title=Selective Leaking — Breaking Ingelfinger's Rule |url=http://schachtmanlaw.com/selective-leaking-breaking-ingelfingers-rule/ |work=Schachtman Law Blog |accessdate=2015-05-23}} 4. ^{{cite arxiv |last1=Lariviere |first1=V |last2=Gingras |first2=Y |year=2009 |title=On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980-2007) |eprint=0906.4019 |class=physics.soc-ph}} 5. ^{{cite book |last=Borgman |first=CL |year=2007 |title=Scholarship in the digital age: information, infrastructure, and the Internet |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZDDu3CuzDdMC&pg=PA99 |page=99 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=978-0-262-02619-2}} 6. ^{{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}} 7. ^{{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}} Further reading
|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 }}
|last=Spain |first=A |date=26 February 2011 |title=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 |accessdate=2017-03-24 }}
|last1=Altman |first1=LK |title=The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review–Part 1 |journal=The Lancet |volume=347 |issue=9012 |pages=1382–6 |year=1996 |pmid=8637347 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(96)91016-8 }}
|last1=Toy |first1=S |year=2002 |title=The Ingelfinger Rule: Franz Ingelfinger at the New England Journal of Medicine 1967–77 |url=http://cseditors.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/v25n6p195-198.pdf |journal=Science Editor |volume=25 |issue=6 |pages=195–198 }}
|last = Harnad |first = S |year = 2000 |title = Ingelfinger Over-Ruled: The Role of the Web in the Future of Refereed Medical Journal Publishing |url = http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/5941/2/harnad00.lancet.html |journal = The Lancet Perspectives |volume = 356 |page = s16 |doi = 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)92002-6 |doi-access = free |deadurl = yes |archiveurl = https://archive.is/20121228213429/http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/5941/2/harnad00.lancet.html |archivedate = 2012-12-28 |df = }}
|last=White |first=E |year=2014 |title=Why the Ecology Letters editorial board should reconsider its No vote on preprints |url=http://jabberwocky.weecology.org/2014/06/30/why-the-ecology-letters-editorial-board-should-reconsider-its-no-vote-on-preprints-2 |work=Jabberwocky Ecology }}
|last1=Desjardins-Proulx |first1=P |last2=White |first2=EP |last3=Adamson |first3=JJ |last4=Ram |first4=K |last5=Poisot |first5=T |last6=Gravel|first6=D |year=2013 |title=The Case for Open Preprints in Biology |journal=PLoS Biology |volume=11 |issue=5 |pages=e1001563 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001563 |doi-access=free |pmid=23690752 |pmc=3653830 }}{{Academic publishing}} 3 : Academic publishing|Peer review|Rules |
| 随便看 |
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。