Embargo Watch

Keeping an eye on how scientific information embargoes affect news coverage

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

with 3 comments

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.


Written by Ivan Oransky

December 28, 2011 at 10:53 am

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The problem I have with Nature’s rules is that they assume that “scientists” and “the media” constitute mutually exclusive groups. Many scientists are bloggers. Many bloggers are considered journalists. If you imagine a Venn diagram with three overlapping circles, in the center is a set of journalist-scientist bloggers.

    Presumably, Nature would be OK with a preprint being discussed by the author and other scientists on a science blog since, “Nature journals do not wish to hinder communication between scientists.” But wait a minute. Suppose one of those blogs, managed by a working scientist and including comments and discussion by other working scientists, happens to be hosted on the Scientific American Blog Network. Is that “communicat[ing] with other researchers as much as you wish,” or is it “encourag[ing] premature publication by discussion with the press?” It seems to me that it’s up to an arbitrary (and not “clear-cut in principle”) decision by a Nature editor.

    Bob Finn

    December 28, 2011 at 12:50 pm

  2. Let’s not forget to ask why embargoes exist in the first place. They do so because Nature wants to get its papers maximum coverage in the press. If, for example, one media outlet scooped a Nature paper, others might be reluctant to cover it because it was “old news”. By forcing all media outlets to cover the story at the same time, Nature seeks to get the widest possible coverage.

    The embargoes have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific publishing process.

    Hamish Johnston

    January 3, 2012 at 3:41 am

  3. I found this article while trying to explain to a colleague the foreign concept called a pre-print server. I’m in biomedical science and was saying that it seemed like a good idea, given how fast biology moves vs. the long time it can take to get something published in a journal. But what I don’t understand is how physics journals continue to exist as financially viable businesses when all the studies are going up on pre-print servers first? If you can get the study free off a pre-print server, why would any person/university library pay for a journal subscription?

    As for Bob’s comment about assuming exclusive groups – at different times I fit into all three categories – scientist publishing research, blogger, and paid writer using embargoed releases. I found this article interesting, because it’s not a quandary I’ve had much – since I rarely write about physics, and my editors tend to be obedient to embargoes. And to keep life simple I resist the temptation to blog about to-be-published work.

    If I could be the devil’s advocate with one good thing about embargoes until publication (for work that isn’t publicly available eg on a pre-print server) – when the news story comes out you can access the journal article if you want – it’s not so great when there’s ‘publication by media release’ prior to the actual article being released and you can’t check any of the facts.


    April 6, 2012 at 11:18 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: