Ingelfinger, embargoes, and other controls on the dissemination of science news

Science Communication

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 297-319

  Kiernan, Vincent ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031513789     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547097018004002     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Altman, L. K. 1996a. The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review - Part 1. The Lancer 347:1382-86.
2. _. 1996b. The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review - Part 2. The Lancet 347:1459-63.
3. Angell, M. 1983. Multiple sclerosis and the Ingelfinger rule. New England Journal of Medicine 308:217-18.
4. Angell, M., and J. P. Kassirer. 1991. The Ingelfinger rule revisited. New England Journal of Medicine 325:1371-73.
5. Antognini, J. F. 1992. The Ingelfinger rule. New England Journal of Medicine 326:958.
6. Bartrip, P.W.J. 1990. Mirror of medicine: A history of the British Medical Journal. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
7. A broken embargo. 1995. Nature 376:2.
8. Burkett, D. W. 1965. Writing science news for the mass media. Houston, TX: Gulf.
9. Cade, J. F. 1993. Medical journals and the popular media. The Medical Journal of Australia 159:568.
10. Carmody, J. 1994. The TV column. The Washington Post, 14 April, C6.
11. Crawford, J. H. 1962. Editorial. Applied Physics Letters 1:51.
12. Definition of "sole contribution." 1969. New England Journal of Medicine 281:676-77.
13. Dunwoody, S. 1979. News-gathering behaviors of specialty reporters: A two-level comparison of mass media decision making. Newspaper Research Journal 1:29-41.
14. _. 1980. The science writing inner club: A communication link between science and the lay public. Science, Technology, & Human Values 5:14-22.
15. Entwistle, V. 1995. Reporting research in medical journals and newspapers. British Medical Journal 310:920-23.
16. Ethiel, N., ed. 1995. Medicine and the media: A changing relationship. Chicago: Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation.
17. Evans, W. 1995. The mundane and the arcane: Prestige media coverage of social and natural science. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 72:168-77.
18. Fishbein, M. 1969. Morris Fishbein, M.D.: An autobiography. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
19. Fitzgerald, M. 1986. AMA blacklists Miami Herald. Editor & Publisher, 3 May, 11-12.
20. Garfield, E. 1986. Which medical journals have the greatest impact? Annals of Internal Medicine 105:313-20.
21. Garvey, W. D. 1979. Communication: The essence of science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
22. Ginsparg, P. 1994a. First steps towards electronic research communication. Computers in Physics 8:390-96.
23. _. 1994b. @xxx.lanl.gov. Los Alamos Science 22:156-65.
24. Goudsmit, S. A. 1960. Publicity. Physical Review Letters 4:1-2.
25. Greenberg, D. 1988. Scooped by its own petard. New Scientist, 10 March, 75.
26. Grouse, L. D. 1981. The Ingelfinger rule. Journal of the American Medical Association 245:375-76.
27. Gustafson, J. R. 1995. Commentary. Science Writers, Summer, 25.
28. Harnad, S. 1990. Scholarly skywriting and the prepublication continuum of scientific inquiry. Psychological Science 1:342-43.
29. _. 1991. Post-Gutenberg galaxy: The fourth revolution in the means of production of knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2:29-41.
30. _. 1995a. Electronic scholarly publication: Quo vadis. Serials Review 21:70-2.
31. _. 1995b. Implementing peer review on the net: Scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals. In Electronic publishing confronts academia: The agenda for the year 2000, edited by R. Peek and G. Newby, 103-18. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Hattal, A. M. 1993. Don't read this story - yet. American Journalism Review, October, 13.
33. Horton, R. C. 1995. Journals versus journalists. European Science Editing, no. 54:3-7.
34. Hultén, O. 1984. Mass media and state support in Sweden. Stockholm: Swedish Institute.
35. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 1982. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Annals of Internal Medicine 96:766-71.
36. _. 1988. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Annals of Internal Medicine 108:258-65.
37. _. 1991. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. New England Journal of Medicine 324:424-28.
38. _. 1992. Statements on electronic publication and on peer-reviewed journals. Annals of Internal Medicine 116:1030.
39. _. 1993. Medical journals and the popular media. The Medical Journal of Australia 159:281.
40. International Steering Committee of Medical Editors. 1979. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. British Medical Journal 278:532-35.
41. Jones, G., and A. J. Meadows. 1978. Sources and selection of scientific material for newspaper and radio programmes. Journal of Research Communication Studies 1:69-82.
42. Kassirer, J. P. 1993. Dissemination of medical information: A journal's role. In Doing more good than harm: The evaluation of health care interventions, edited by Kenneth S. Warren and Frederick Mosteller, 173-79. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
43. Kassirer, J. P., and M. Angell. 1994. Violations of the embargo and a new policy on early publicity. New England Journal of Medicine 330:1608-09.
44. _. 1995. The Internet and the Journal. New England Journal of Medicine 332:1709-10.
45. Krieghbaum, H. 1941. American newspaper reporting of science. Kansas State College Bulletin 25 (5):1-73.
46. Kurtz, H. 1991. Embargo dispute highlights scientific journals' influence on news. The Washington Post, 16 June, A10.
47. Kutner, B. N. 1988. Press embargoes and medical news. Archives of Ophthalmology 106:879.
48. Lewenstein, B. V. 1987. "Public understanding of science" in America, 1945-1965. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.
49. Lock, S. 1986. A difficult balance: Editorial peer review in medicine. Philadelphia: ISI Press.
50. _. 1990. Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist: International co-operation among medical journals. Ugeskrift for Laeger 152:3769-71.
51. Lundberg, G. D. 1989. Providing reliable medical information to the public - caveat lector. Journal of the American Medical Association 262:945.
52. McBride, G. 1981. Now for the latest news. Journal of the American Medical Association 245:374-75.
53. Molitor, F. 1993. Accuracy in science news reporting by newspapers: The case of aspirin for the prevention of heart attacks. Health Communication 5:209-24.
54. Morrison, B. 1995. So you want to win a Nobel prize? The New York Times Magazine, 1 October, 62-65.
55. Nelkin, D. 1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Rev. ed. New York: Freeman.
56. Pekow, C. 1992. Breaking the pledge. Quill, November/December, 23-25.
57. Perlman, D. 1992. The Ingelfinger rule. The New England Journal of Medicine 326:957.
58. Phillips, D. P. 1991. Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine 325:1180-83.
59. Relman, A. S. 1981. The Ingelfinger rule. New England Journal of Medicine 305:824-26.
60. _. 1988a. More on the Ingelfinger rule. New England Journal of Medicine 381:1125-26.
61. _. 1988b. Reporting the aspirin study: The Journal and the media. New England Journal of Medicine 318:918-20.
62. _. 1989. Medical research, medical journals and the public interest. Society of Research Administrators Journal 21 (2):7.
63. Roush, W. 1995. "Fat hormone" poses hefty problem for journal embargo. Science 269:627.
64. Scott, J. 1990. Medical journals: Eye on the scoop. Los Angeles Times, 26 February, A24.
65. Smith, R. E. 1970. Press and profession. The Lancet, 24 January, 148.
66. Stacey, J. 1985. The press embargo: Friend or toe? Journal of the American Medical Association 254:1965-66.
67. Subscribing to Quadnet. 1997. Available online at http://www.quad-net.com/qnet_subscribe.html.
68. Taubes, G. 1993. Publication by electronic mail takes physics by storm. Science 259:1246-48.
69. Tunstall, J. 1971. Journalists at work: Specialist correspondents: Their news organizations, news sources and competitor-colleagues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
70. Ubell, E., and P. Fraley. 1954. Report of the Committee on Release Time. Newsletter of the National Association of Science Writers 2 (3):9.
71. van Trigt, A. M., L.T.W. de Jong-van den Berg, F. M. Haaijer-Ruskamp, J. Willems, and T.F.J. Tromp. 1994. Journalists and their sources of ideas and information on medicines. Social Science and Medicine 38:637-43.
72. van Trigt, A. M., L.T.W. de Jong-van den Berg, L. M. Voogt, J. Willems, T.F.J. Tromp, and F. M. Haaijer-Ruskamp. 1995. Setting the agenda: Does the medical literature set the agenda for articles about medicines in the newspapers? Social Science and Medicine 41:893-99.
73. Wade, N. 1981. Medical journal draws lancet on rival. Science 211:561.
74. Walsh, J. 1980. Science in transition, 1946 to 1962. Science 209:52-57.
75. Warren, K. S., and F. Mosteller, eds. 1993. Doing more good than harm: The evaluation of health care interventions. Vol. 703 of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
76. Welch, J. A. 1985. News embargoes. Presstime, August, 14-15.
77. Whitehouse, D. 1991. Time to ban the bans: Reaching breaking point with embargoes. New Scientist, 17 August, 48.
78. Whiting, S. 1995. Faltering press embargo? Science 270:13.
79. Wilk, J. 1988. News service intends to break embargoes on medical reports. Boston Globe, 12 February, Metro 1.
80. Wilkes, M. S., and R. L. Kravitz. 1995. Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors. Journal of General Internal Medicine 10:443-50.