What should physics writers do about the arXiv “freely available but embargoed” problem?

Photo via hetemeel.com

Imagine you’re a writer covering physics. (Or, if you’re a writer covering physics, just be yourself for the moment.) Now imagine you came across a paper called “Disruption of a Proto-Planetary Disk by the Black Hole at the Milky Way Centre” that got your mind’s juices flowing. The abstract looks really interesting, so you’re about to click on the PDF link when you see this:

Press embargo until published

Hmm, have you been crushed by the “freely available but embargoed” monster yet again? Or are you free to report on this exciting finding?

I asked my Twitter followers what they’d do. This being a holiday week, just one stalwart got back to me, Dan Vergano of USA Today:

You bet we would. It’s public, so if it’s news, it’s news.

But Vergano, an experienced reporter on all things science, knows how to put studies in perspective:

For a news story, we would note hasn’t been peer-reviewed, unless it says accepted for publication.

arXiv, as those of you just imagining yourselves as physics writers may not know, is a preprint server. Papers there haven’t been “published” in an official sense. But they are publicly available, not even a password required. Vergano knows that, and he also knows the rules:

I might note his or her demurring from commenting to show his editors he tried.

Indeed, I should do the same here. I contacted the corresponding author of the arXiv paper, Ruth Murray-Clay, and asked how she justified embargoing something that was publicly available: 

Per Nature’s rules, we are not allowed to speak with reporters or encourage press coverage of our preprint.  In addition, while we want to present our idea to the scientific community as quickly as possible to facilitate discussion about this very interesting object, we do not want to present it to the press as a “completed result” before it has been fully vetted by the referees and other members of the field.  I feel strongly that scientific results should be communicated to the public effectively.  Reporting on work that hasn’t been fully vetted has the potential to cause confusion, and the wait between now and publication of our paper will likely be short.

Indeed, here’s what Nature has to say about preprints and other pre-publication issues:

Nature journals do not wish to hinder communication between scientists. For that reason, different embargo guidelines apply to work that has been discussed at a conference or displayed on a preprint server and picked up by the media as a result. (Neither conference presentations nor posting on recognized preprint servers constitute prior publication.)

Our guidelines for authors and potential authors in such circumstances are clear-cut in principle: communicate with other researchers as much as you wish, whether on a recognised community preprint server, on Nature Precedings, by discussion at scientific meetings (publication of abstracts in conference proceedings is allowed), in an academic thesis, or by online collaborative sites such as wikis; but do not encourage premature publication by discussion with the press (beyond a formal presentation, if at a conference).

So, as long as the scientist doesn’t court media attention, a story about the paper wouldn’t violate the Ingelfinger Rule and give Nature an excuse to reject it. The effect of the Ingelfinger Rule is to have coverage without comment from the authors, which seems odd, but it doesn’t prevent an intrepid reporter from writing about findings.

Planetary Society blogger Emily Lakdawalla faced a similar issue recently when an astronomer presented results at a meeting but told the audience they couldn’t publish anything about the findings because of Nature’s embargo. It turned out that the scientist was overinterpreting the Ingelfinger Rule.

I’m with Vergano. So’s Nature.

Update, 3:50 p.m. Eastern, 12/28/11: Apparently, Scientific American’s John Matson is with us, too. He covered the study earlier this week and says:

It’s public, it’s in the open, so it’s fair game.