Guest Particle Noun Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Squatch, that is for pre submission versions only, and I think we've covered why no pressubmission version was published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 The proper question should have been, "Can an author publish a pre-submission version on a blog, wiki, or preprint server, as per the instructions indicate here?" One thing that should be clear from my earlier e-mail exchange is that in no case should an author say which journal they have submitted a paper or whether it is peer review with said journal. That should be abundantly clear. The link you provided details the guidelines of how an author should deal with the media, noting that media must be made aware of embargo requirements at all times. Publishing pre-submission or original submission versions of the article is fine, as long as it is on a personal blog, collaborative wiki, or a preprint server. Of those three options the personal blog would be the most public forum, the preprint server is not public, and collaborative wiki's are generally not public either. Note that this is at the author's discretion and the journal doesn't require such preprint publication. Another part of your link contains a warning regarding taxonomy of new species: Taxonomic descriptions. Authors of papers that contain taxonomy (that is, the formal nomenclature and description of a newly discovered species) should be aware that it is possible for third parties to exploit the prior publication of nomenclature at any time between online posting of a preprint and the print publication date in a journal, by publishing the name in print and asserting priority according to the rules of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Nature Publishing Group takes no responsibility for such assertions of priority in the case of manuscripts it publishes if the content of those manuscripts have previously appeared in the public domain as online preprints or other form of online posting. I think it is pretty safe to say that Dr. Ketchum is within her rights to not reveal information about the paper. It is also safe to say that if she were to have followed the "advise" of many of the more skeptical side of the BFF that her submission would be in jeopardy of rejection. Certainly to have her come on a forum like ours to discuss the paper prior to publication, other than her one post to disclaim the copyright filings issue, would be inappropriate. As noted by SS, this is a forum that is read by many in the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Now you all do realize that we are arguing over policies that don't apply to this paper right? Remember Ketchum has stated that her paper is not with the Nature group. BFF might be read by the media, But I doubt its considered under their policies as "the Media". Edited September 7, 2012 by squating squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I selected the Nature group as an example of the kind of policies that journals have in general. We could continue the exercise and contact several more journals and read their policies and e-mail them with clarifications, but frankly speaking they all seem to have similar policies. No matter what the policies of the journal, the author would have final say whether they publish an early version of the paper or otherwise do prepublication discussions or reports. If they choose to avoid more public venues, such as a blog, and concentrate on private venues, such as a science conference, that is their decision. I'm willing to bet a fair amount that you won't find a journal that has a policy that states the author must publish their pre-submission reports or otherwise discuss the paper in public. Nor do I think you will find a journal that encourages an author to do so in their policies. If anyone can find a publication with that kind of policy I'd be interested to see the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 If you didn't want the media to catch wind of something then why would you post it on a public message board? I certainly wouldn't jeopardize it over some technical point of what is considered "media". That would just be foolish, and I doubt the publication would care to hear the excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 ^ Melba has already stated that she can report that they exist but she cannot give any technical information about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 One thing that should be clear from my earlier e-mail exchange is that in no case should an author say which journal they have submitted a paper or whether it is peer review with said journal. That should be abundantly clear. The link you provided details the guidelines of how an author should deal with the media, noting that media must be made aware of embargo requirements at all times. Publishing pre-submission or original submission versions of the article is fine, as long as it is on a personal blog, collaborative wiki, or a preprint server. Of those three options the personal blog would be the most public forum, the preprint server is not public, and collaborative wiki's are generally not public either. Note that this is at the author's discretion and the journal doesn't require such preprint publication. Another part of your link contains a warning regarding taxonomy of new species: Taxonomic descriptions. Authors of papers that contain taxonomy (that is, the formal nomenclature and description of a newly discovered species) should be aware that it is possible for third parties to exploit the prior publication of nomenclature at any time between online posting of a preprint and the print publication date in a journal, by publishing the name in print and asserting priority according to the rules of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Nature Publishing Group takes no responsibility for such assertions of priority in the case of manuscripts it publishes if the content of those manuscripts have previously appeared in the public domain as online preprints or other form of online posting. I think it is pretty safe to say that Dr. Ketchum is within her rights to not reveal information about the paper. It is also safe to say that if she were to have followed the "advise" of many of the more skeptical side of the BFF that her submission would be in jeopardy of rejection. Certainly to have her come on a forum like ours to discuss the paper prior to publication, other than her one post to disclaim the copyright filings issue, would be inappropriate. As noted by SS, this is a forum that is read by many in the media. actually at least some preprint servers are public.http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/what-should-physics-writers-do-about-the-arxiv-freely-available-but-embargoed-problem/ 17th question down http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/faq.html So we have narrowed it down to not a journal embargo, But nda's or Just Melba not wanting to give out any information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Well I'm glad to see that's settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Ray, did you read the post from BFSleuth in which he emailed Nature to ask about an author confirming that a journal is with Nature? And the part where they confirmed that the author should NOT CONFIRM that the paper is with Nature? Why would an author of something as highly contentious as this publish a pre-submission version? Espeically when that author has stated on numerous occasions that as the study went on, their thinking and interpretations changed drastically? Is this really that complicated? I think BFSleuth has pretty much nailed this one. ahh, that's the real question isn't it. If its as solid as she says, why wouldn't she? Edited September 7, 2012 by squating squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 The mention of embargoes is a red herring that has nothing to do with whether pre-submission versions can be released in a blog, wiki, or on a preprint server. The revelation that pre-admission publication was allowed by Nature, quickly led to objections being raised about NDAs, which again has nothing to do with embargoes. Seems pretty straight forward to me. And yet here we are, at this late stage of the game, with a reference and a link to an embargo that doesn't apply. RayG At least you admit that much. The NDAs won't allow even the pre-submission version to be published prior to certain conditions being met. Seems simple enough to me. Even if there were no embargo, she still couldn't say anything substantive due to the NDAs. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Or is it that you just don't want to accept that her hands are tied and keep throwing mud at her and the study? ahh, that's the real question isn't it. If its as solid as she says, why wouldn't she? Because between the embargo and the NDAs she's not allowed to. Again, why is this so hard for people to understand; she is not allowed to say more. This is getting really old. How many times must it be said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) How many times must it be said? I guess people have a hard time wrapping their minds around it... Edited September 7, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Some folks must have a different agenda... One that includes repeating the same question over and over and not listening, ( understanding what they are reading ) Bombarding this forum with the same question. Why? Edited September 7, 2012 by MikeG ...to bring into compliance with rule 3E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 At least you admit that much. The NDAs won't allow even the pre-submission version to be published prior to certain conditions being met. Seems simple enough to me. Even if there were no embargo, she still couldn't say anything substantive due to the NDAs. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Or is it that you just don't want to accept that her hands are tied and keep throwing mud at her and the study? Because between the embargo and the NDAs she's not allowed to. Again, why is this so hard for people to understand; she is not allowed to say more. This is getting really old. How many times must it be said? since we have confirmed the lack of info is not from a journal embargo, that just leaves the nda's. Now I'll have to do some digging ,but I think Melba is the one making everybody sign nda's. I not so sure that she is actually confined by one. I'll get back to you on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 The rumour is, both her and Adrian Erickson were getting lots of people to sign NDA's for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 At least you admit that much. Shouldn't be any surprise, it's what I've said from the beginning. The NDAs won't allow even the pre-submission version to be published prior to certain conditions being met. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the journal placing an embargo upon the author. Seems simple enough to me. Even if there were no embargo, she still couldn't say anything substantive due to the NDAs. Don't believe I've ever argued otherwise. My contention is that claims for the journal not allowing her to publish anything is completely unsupported by evidence. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Or is it that you just don't want to accept that her hands are tied and keep throwing mud at her and the study? It's not me that's failing to grasp things. The whole non-issue of an embargo by the journal came up months ago. I provided links back then to show why it was a non-issue. NDAs between Ketchum and private individuals have nothing to do with any unproven embargo implemented by a science journal. Because between the embargo and the NDAs she's not allowed to. No one has shown there is an embargo in place, so why you keep ranting on about it is a mystery to me. Again, why is this so hard for people to understand; she is not allowed to say more. Great, however that would be between her and the people she has an NDA agreement with, not any embargo by the journal. This is getting really old. How many times must it be said? Until some people understand? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts