On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, George Lundberg wrote:
> In the document entitled Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted
> to Medical Journals published by the International Committee of Medical
> Journal Editors it is stated that "...electronic publication is
> publication..." Most such journals do not wish to consider for
> publication a paper that has already been published. Thus an author can
> choose the initial method of distribution of written work once only.
It is not clear to me why George posted this comment in the
"Copyright" thread. Nor does the brief passage he quotes appear
in the version I found on the Web (original draft 1978, revised in
1997, last update of web version 5 May 2000).
http://www.cma.ca/mwc/uniform.htm
The closest approximation I could find was:
"Most journals do not wish to receive papers on work that
has already been reported in large part in a published
article or is described in a paper that has been
submitted or accepted for publication elsewhere, in
print or in electronic media. This policy does not
preclude the journal considering a paper that has been
rejected by another journal, or a complete report that
follows publication of a preliminary report such as an
abstract or poster displayed for colleagues at a
professional meeting. Nor does it prevent journals
considering a paper that has been presented at a
scientific meeting but not published in full or that is
being considered for publication in a proceedings or
similar format."
I doubt that George is meaning to construe this as the "Ingelfinger
Rule," which has nothing to do with copyright, and which some
journals try to invoke as a justification for declining to publish or
even to referee papers that have been archived online as preprints.
If that is George's intention, then please note that the Ingelfinger
Rule is neither a legal matter nor is it enforceable. Nor does it have
any justification -- scientific, ethical, or otherwise. It is merely a
measure for protecting journal revenue streams. (About protecting
public health, see references below.) And it has been discussed in this
Forum, before (e.g., under the thread "Ingelfinger and physics
journals").
Harnad, S. (2000) Ingelfinger Over-Ruled: The Role of the Web in
the Future of Refereed Medical Journal Publishing. Lancet
Perspectives 256 (December Supplement): s16.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.lancet.htm
Harnad, S. (2000) E-Knowledge: Freeing the Refereed Journal Corpus
Online. Computer Law & Security Report 16(2) 78-87. [Rebuttal to
Bloom Editorial in Science and Relman Editorial in New England
Journalof Medicine]
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.scinejm.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/285/5425/197#EL12
Nor do I think George is merely trying to remind us of a home truth
that everyone in the American Scientist Forum surely knows and accepts
already: That a refereed electronic-only journal is indeed a journal,
hence publication in such a journal is indeed publication.
So just what point WAS George trying to make with this posting?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stevan Harnad harnad_at_cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Science harnad_at_princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
Computer Science fax: +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southampton
http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM
Received on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:17:43 GMT