Minutes after I posted that I was putting Embargo Watch under embargo until June 30, we got this notice from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR):
The embargo has been lifted on the AACR press release: “Coffee May Protect Against Head and Neck Cancers,” due to a violation by Drug Discovery and Development and the Sci-Tech Heretic blog. Reporters may post their stories effective immediately. Read the rest of this entry »
The embargo should be lifting in two minutes, at 1 p.m. Eastern, on a study in Clinical Cancer Research which found that lowering stress among women with breast cancer was linked to better outcomes. But an item about the study went live on CNN’s Paging Dr. Gupta blog at 10 a.m. Eastern.
Jeff Grabmeier, director of research communications at Ohio State University, where the study’s lead researcher works, emailed me about the break a bit before noon. He said a local reporter had come across the CNN item. Jeff called the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), the journal’s publisher, and a press officer there told him that they’d contact CNN to see if they could take down the item. Read the rest of this entry »
The embargo has just lifted — at 12:01 a.m. Eastern, May 6 — on the President’s Cancer Panel’s new report, “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now.” You will probably be reading a lot about this report’s hard line on regulating chemicals in the coming days. You can start by reading Reuters’ version here.
But if you were one of Nick Kristof’s many loyal readers who checks for his new columns the night before they appear in print, you would have known about this report hours ago. Or at least two hours ago, when someone forwarded me a link to this column. I’m not sure exactly what time it went up, but it was before 10 p.m. Eastern. Nick tweeted about it at 11:10 Eastern.
At least three possibilities, in order of what I find least to most likely:
Read the rest of this entry »
Ordinarily, you won’t catch me writing an item or story about a press release, or even based solely on a press release. In fact, I rail against such practices when it comes to clinical studies.
But here at Embargo Watch, there’s at least one release worth writing a post on: The American Society of Clinical Oncology’s, or ASCO’s. Read the rest of this entry »
Please note that the embargo on the Journal of Investigative Dermatology paper below is lifted, effective immediately, due to early reporting.
Due to a production scheduling error, PNAS is lifting the embargo early on the following paper.
Article #13-00759: “Induced Plant Defenses, Host-Pathogen Interactions, and Forest Insect Outbreaks,” by Bret D. Elderd et al.
PNAS tells us: Read the rest of this entry »
Yesterday, the team I lead at Reuters Health unintentionally broke the embargo on a study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO), in a story titled “Early end-of-life talks tied to less aggressive care.” We set to the story to post at the JCO’s regular embargo time of 4 p.m. Eastern on Monday, but the study was actually embargoed until 4 p.m. today because of the Veteran’s Day holiday in the U.S.
ASCO, which publishes the JCO, sent this to reporters about an hour ago: Read the rest of this entry »
From an email that went out at 7:46 p.m. Eastern tonight — just 12 minutes before the scheduled lift: Read the rest of this entry »
If someone who has agreed to an embargo policy publishes a story about a paper that’s still under embargo — or tweets specifics about it — it’s hard to argue that’s anything other than a break. But what if said person just says something’s about to published?
The answer, from an email about embargoed material from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) today (bolding was NEJM’s): Read the rest of this entry »
A study of the effect of genetically modified corn on rats that you may have read about earlier this week doesn’t seem to have said much about whether GMOs are safe. But it sure said a lot about how the scientists who did the work used a crafty embargo to control their message.
In an excellent post over at the New York Times’ Dot Earth blog, Andy Revkin says the study
co-sponsored by the Sustainable Food Trust, is yet another example of the “single study syndrome:”