Embargo Watch

Keeping an eye on how scientific information embargoes affect news coverage

Good intentions, unintended consequences at American Thoracic Society

with 6 comments

The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

One of my staff writers was sitting down a few weeks ago to report out a study from The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (AJRCCM) when she noticed some small print at the top of the cover page: “Media embargo until 2 weeks after above posting date.” The page also directed reporters to the embargo policy.

The paper was an advance online publication, and the policy was just a few weeks old, it turns out, so it wasn’t unexpected that I hadn’t noticed it before. What was unusual, however, was that I wasn’t accessing the paper in question through a press site. I was accessing it through HighWire, a Stanford University service that many publishers use to make electronic versions of their journals available.

In other words, according to this embargo, the press can’t write about papers for two weeks while they’re freely available to any HighWire subscriber — and that’s a lot of doctors at a lot of medical schools and hospitals.

This was a new one for me. Embargoed papers not being available to anyone but the press, sure. But available to many doctors — and anyone doctors showed them to — for two weeks before we could write about them? The only policy I knew of that came anywhere close was The New England Journal of Medicine. Their 5 p.m. Eastern Wednesday embargoes mean that some doctors may get their copies of the Journal in their mailboxes a day or two before the press reports on a particular study, because it’s mailed out earlier in the week. The policy “is designed primarily to ensure that physician subscribers have their copy of the Journal at about the same time their patients hear about new research through the news media.”

Even though I couldn’t quite understand the AJRCCM embargo policy, I told my staff writer to hold off on writing her report, and I called Brian Kell, director of communications and marketing at the American Thoracic Society, which publishes AJRCCM.

We spoke once briefly, and Kell listened to my concerns. Over the course of that conversation and a voicemail message he left after saying he’d discuss the issue with other staff and get back to me, Kell explained that the Society changed the policy in response to complaints that they were holding their research embargoed for too long.

Before the change, they had released material to reporters, embargoed for six to eight weeks. The advance online material they did not write press releases on, however, was not embargoed. Now, everything released online was under an embargo.

Kell said he understood how I might find the policy problematic. But, he said, “For now, we want to keep with the embargo policy that we set. Remember, this moved up the date of publication for the research by six to eight weeks,  so we think we’re trying to meet the media and reporters’ desire to make it earlier.”

Other than from me, the Society hadn’t heard any complaints. “We think it puts everyone on a level playing field. But it if doesn’t work, we can revisit it.” That would probably mean not releasing the content to reporters until a day before the embargo breaks, he said.

So it seemed to me that this was a well-intentioned move that was having unintended consequences. The Society was trying to solve a problem, and there were competing legitimate interests.

To make sure I wasn’t missing something, or that this wasn’t more common than I thought, I ran the policy by a few people on either side of the public relations and reporter aisles. None of them had ever heard of such a thing.

“There is no greater sin than ignoring information that is, nominally, public,” Brian Reid, of 6 Degrees PR, a strategic communications firm for pharma and biotech companies, wrote me by email. “If it’s on HighWire, you can bet that investors are looking at it. That kind of information asymmetry is unfair, needless and — in the case of financial journalists — something that they should not (and generally do not) abet.”

Reid also noted that some medical meetings seem to be drifting this way: “Posters are especially problematic. Some are up the duration of the meeting, but are technically embargoed for when they are moderated.”

Another source even said I’d be well within my rights to break the embargo, since we weren’t actually getting the material by way of a press embargo agreement.

So what should we do? The AJRCCM is a highly cited journal — ranked first in the “respiratory system” by my Thomson Reuters Scientific colleagues’ Journal Citation Reports. That means it’s very likely to publish studies our physician readers, and to some extent our consumer audience, will find useful. We should definitely cover worthwhile research in it.

But should we uphold this “embargo?” There’s really nothing stopping us from running stories on AJRCCM studies as soon as they’re posted. And in a competitive media marketplace, it’s important to note that there’s really nothing stopping any of my competitors from doing the same thing, whether they get the studies from HighWire or from a doctor with access to the service.

For now, I think we’ll uphold it. Good intentions go a long way for me, even if I’d rather be able to publish as soon as we can, to serve our readers best. But if competitors start running stories before we do, I’ll have to reconsider. And if the Society changes its mind, hopefully in a way that makes better sense for us, we’d welcome that.


Written by Ivan Oransky

February 23, 2010 at 12:55 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I think you’re being extremely charitable to them. I can see their chain of reasoning but the outcome is ludicrous. If the public can see it, surely it counts as a form of censorship to deny the press the right to report on it? You’re right of course that being nice goes a long way but their policy is just taking the piss.

    Ed Yong

    February 23, 2010 at 6:16 pm

  2. Great post, Ivan, and it seems like you’ll have a wealth of material to draw from.

    I can’t understand your impulse to make nice here. An embargo is a quid pro quo and, in the case of these AOP papers, the journal isn’t giving you any privileged information, so why do you owe them anything?

    Brendan Borrell

    February 23, 2010 at 6:47 pm

  3. I guess the philosophical question here is, after two weeks, is it still news, or is it history? Journals want to orchestrate a sense of drama with their embargoes – but any high production value the latest bit of science may have to offer rests delicately on its novelty.

    Maybe AJRCCM will get the message if we begin reports thusly: “Two weeks ago AJRCCM published a study that really had doctors talking, and some bloggers too. Here’s why it was so interesting at the time…”

    Ford Vox

    February 23, 2010 at 9:31 pm

  4. My understanding if an embargo is that it is a date and time before which information may not be made public. If the paper has been peer-reviewed and published, even if it’s AOP, it’s already in the public domain. So how can an embargo be said to exist? If I were in your position, I’d go ahead and write the article and point out that there was no de facto embargo for you to break.

    Claire A

    February 24, 2010 at 5:51 pm

  5. For my own $.02, I don’t see what the problem is. If a story is out for two weeks, it’s going to be easier for journalist to find independent sources who’ve read a paper closely, rather than taking a quick look at it for comment purposes. There’s also time in that two weeks to put together a more thoughtful story, rather than jumbling something together over a couple days. And except in the most arbitrary sense, a study has no less news value two weeks after publication than two hours after. At worst, reporters will have to put the studies in larger context, using a “two-week-old” study as a recent news hook for a trend piece.

    All in all, this just seems like a good idea.

    (One caveat: if the results of a paper are indeed being reported in press releases, a la Brian Reid’s point, then the embargo should be suspended. Even better, they should be expected to obey the embargos as well.)

    Brandon Keim

    February 24, 2010 at 6:06 pm

  6. “I’d be well within my rights to break the embargo, since we weren’t actually getting the material by way of a press embargo agreement.”

    This is my opinion as well. You didn’t agree to an embargo in exchange for a copy of the article, and in any event, embargoes do not apply to material that has already been published. I think someone doesn’t understand the meaning of an embargo, and it’s not you.

    Shannon O'Connor

    February 26, 2010 at 1:33 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: