Archive for the ‘embargo watch honor roll’ Category
On Tuesday, I reported that the journal PeerJ had broken its own embargo on a study of the brontosaurus, and had actually planned to in an attempt to “make sure it was published and online correctly before the press started linking to it.” The journal, as I noted, was in essence saying that it was “fine to make something available online but keep the embargo.” And there are other ways to ensure studies are available online when embargoes lift — something many journals, PNAS notably not included, have figured out.
The PeerJ policy had generated some criticism before the Embargo Watch post, and reactions on Twitter and elsewhere were also critical, with rare exceptions. Today, thanks to a comment by news release service Alpha Galileo, we learned that PeerJ has reversed its policy.
I asked PeerJ to confirm, and explain their rationale. They responded: Read the rest of this entry »
On Thursday, I wrote about a troubling embargo policy at the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) that forced reporters to agree not to seek outside comment on an investigation report before the embargo lifted, meaning only the CSB’s side of the story would make it into those first pieces.
Facing criticism, EASL changes its embargo policy — and earns a spot on the Embargo Watch Honor Roll
Yesterday, I criticized a strange embargo policy in place for an upcoming European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) conference. That policy, which drew Adam Feuerstein’s ire along with mine, allowed anyone who had paid to attend the April conference — including investors — to get abstracts this week, while they were still under embargo.
This morning, in an email to its press list, the EASL announced it was changing the policy: Read the rest of this entry »
The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) has a new policy that’s a breath of transparent air into what can be an inconsistent area that many organizations would rather sweep under the rug: How to sanction embargo breakers. (Yes, I mixed some metaphors.)
The end of 2011 has snuck up on me, and there’s not much time left for a Best of 2011 post. So I’ll just call attention to the scientific societies and journals that did something to earn a spot on the Embargo Watch Honor Roll this year. These are all organizations who changed their policies following Embargo Watch criticism: Read the rest of this entry »
More than 16 months ago, just a few weeks after Embargo Watch was born, I wrote about a “freely available but embargoed” policy at CHEST, published by the American College of Chest Physicians. Here was that policy:
Even though they appear online, CHEST Papers In Press are embargoed from media coverage until they appear in a forthcoming print issue of CHEST. When a Paper in Press appears in a print issue of CHEST, the article will adhere to the standard CHEST embargo policy. For questions regarding CHEST embargo policies, please contact the ACCP Public Relations Department…
As I noted then, comparing the policy to one at the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine that has since been changed:
The basic idea is the same: Papers are available to any HighWire subscriber, but embargoed for press coverage. The differences: The PDFs of the papers themselves don’t mention the embargo, and it’s not clear how long the embargo lasts.
I didn’t like their “freely available but embargoed” policy any more than I liked any other. So you can imagine that I was quite pleased to see this land in my inbox this morning: Read the rest of this entry »
FDA makes the right move, reversing itself and letting reporters speak to sources before embargo lifts
In January, Embargo Watch reported that the FDA had told reporters they couldn’t speak to outside sources about a medical device approval announcement until the embargo had lifted. I argued that such an approach would turn journalists into stenographers.
The Association of Health Care Journalists board of directors — of which, in full disclosure, I am a member — agreed, and sent a strongly worded letter to the agency in February. Yesterday, the FDA wrote back, laying out the rationale for its policy. The important sentence is here, where it reverses the approach it took in January: Read the rest of this entry »