Archive for the ‘eurekalertpolicy’ Category
According to AAAS, io9 does not merit access to embargoed science news and they deactivated my Eurekalert account without explanation!
Newitz was also concerned, because she needed that access to cover stories this week. This is the email EurekAlert senior communications officer Jennifer Santisi sent her: Read the rest of this entry »
EurekAlert has withdrawn a press release after realizing that it contained unsupported statements about climate change. As Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian reports:
An online news service sponsored by the world’s premier scientific association unwittingly promoted a study making the false claim that catastrophic global warming would occur within nine years, the Guardian has learned.
The study, by an NGO based in Argentina, claimed the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020 and projected dire consequences for global food supply. A press release for the Food Gap study was carried by EurekAlert!, the news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) , and the story was picked up by a number of international news organisations on Tuesday.
Read the rest of Goldenberg’s story. It’s quite illuminating.
A reporter at The Guardian has been sanctioned by EurekAlert after her story about a Science paper detailing the oil plume still sitting in the Gulf of Mexico was reprinted on The Age newspaper’s website before the 2 p.m. Eastern embargo had lifted yesterday.
Science Press Package director Kathy Wren told me by email: Read the rest of this entry »
When it rains, it pours, at least when it comes to embargo breaks, apparently. While I was conducting this interview with Daniel Carlat between noon and one today, two notices about early embargo lifts went out. One was about this ASCO Rituxan break, and here’s the other:
The AAAS Office of Public Programs is lifting the embargo, effective immediately, on the Science article “Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome,” by D. Gibson and colleagues, because this information has entered the public domain.
A summary of the article follows, and a copy of the manuscript is available at http://www.eurekalert.org/jrnls/sci/. The embargo is being lifted so that reporters may freely publish their coverage now. The rest of this week’s SciPak content will remain under embargo until 2 pm US ET today, 20 May.
At least two newspapers broke the embargo on last week’s study in Science that gave us lovely headlines such as “DNA proves we had sex with Neanderthals.”
That title came courtesy of The Daily Telegraph of Australia, whose story seems to have posted about 12 hours before the 2 p.m. Eastern embargo Thursday. The story was taken down at the request of Science, according to Natasha Pinol, senior communications officer at the AAAS/Science office of public programs.
Science also asked another paper in Ireland* to take down their story that went live before the embargo, Natasha told me Friday. Because of the various time differences, Science is still gathering information to decide whether there will be sanctions against the papers.
The Daily Telegraph, it should be noted, gave the world this headline last September: “Neanderthal man was a brutal cranivore (sic) who hunted and raped humans.” I believe a cranivore is an animal that eats heads, but maybe someone with more anthropology expertise can correct me. Read the rest of this entry »
The thoughts in this post have been rattling around my Homo sapiens skull for more than four days, so brace yourself. This may end up reading as though a pipe just burst in your basement.
As this goes live, so do dozens, if not hundreds, of stories about Australopithecus sediba, “a new species of australopith found at the Malapa site in South Africa,” according to Science, where two studies about the new find are published.
I will leave the analysis of the studies themselves to bloggers and others who actually know something about anthropology. I’ve been led to believe this is an important finding, even if “missing link” is as usual a complete misnomer. (Unless my eyes or my text finder are completely off, that phrase appears nowhere in the studies, nor in the other material provided for the press.) The scientifically curious part of my mind looks forward to learning more about it.
Right now, what I’m more interested in is the circumstances surrounding the study’s embargo. Let’s review what happened. Read the rest of this entry »
Last week, a blogger who goes by GrrlScientist applied for access to embargoed materials from EurekAlert!, the the press release clearinghouse run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Within four minutes, she was denied.
GrrlScientist was angry, and in a blog post titled “Goddam, But I Hate Embargoes,” she spewed venom in a number of directions. She called the policy “stupid.” She had some choice words for the mainstream media, too, and wrote that “If a MSM reporter breaks embargo, their organization is almost never ‘punished’ by having their literature access revoked.” I’d have to take issue with that: See this example, this other one, and this third one all since Embargo Watch debuted in late February, and this one from 2007 that I referenced last week. (I should note that she later called this rant “mild by internet/blogosphere standards.”) Read the rest of this entry »
One day last week, I got an email from EurekAlert!, the press release clearinghouse run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, with a new embargo agreement for me to sign. I had made some changes to my EurekAlert! profile, which triggered the need for an update. (Sorry, they use the exclamation point, so I’ll do so here, even though it looks like frantic spam here on the blog.)
The agreement — pasted below — includes several provisions that weren’t in the version I signed in March 2009, and changes to others. Two of the changes — points 4 and 6 — suggest that entire news organizations can be held responsible for a single reporter’s embargo break.
The other, point 5, asks reporters to vouch that they aren’t any of the following: “financial consultant/investment advisor, policy analyst, public information/marketing professional, researcher, or manuscript editor/reviewer at a peer-reviewed journal.” Read the rest of this entry »