Ingelfinger rule

In·gel·fin·ger rule

(ing'gel-fing'gĕr),
a principle developed by Franz Ingelfinger for use in the editorial offices of the New England Journal of Medicine, stating that original articles submitted for publication will be reviewed on the understanding that the same information will not be submitted for publication elsewhere during the period of review; has been adopted by many other peer-reviewed medical journals.
Guidelines delineated by Franz J. Ingelfinger, MD, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, who felt that 2 criteria were imperative in accepting papers for publication in a scientific journal of high quality:
1. A news embargo on articles scheduled for appearance in the journal and
2. Strict application of the Ingelfinger rule:
‘The journal undertakes review with the understanding that neither the substance of the article nor the figures or tables have been published or will be submitted for publication during the period of review. This restriction does not apply to abstracts published in connection with scientific meetings or to news reports based on public presentations at such meetings’; the Rule has become the standard for quality medical and scientific journalism

In·gel·fin·ger rule

(ing'gĕl-fing'gĕr rūl)
A principle developed by Franz Ingelfinger for use in the editorial offices of the New England Journal of Medicine, stating that original articles submitted for publication will be reviewed on the understanding that the same information will not be submitted for publication elsewhere during the period of review; has been adopted by many other peer-reviewed medical journals.
References in periodicals archive ?
Should research be publicized before publication: An appraisal of Ingelfinger rule.
Author(s) needs to be aware that if both submissions are accepted simultaneously one of them must be retained since it is a worst case to have published same paper in two journals according to Ingelfinger rule.
Not only the web, but the dominance of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising makes obsolete the Ingelfinger rule begun mid-20th century.
Not only have they routinely acquired the copyright of papers they publish, but they have also often sought to acquire exclusivity retrospectively too--a strategy made manifest in 1969 with the so-called Ingelfinger rule.
Critics of the Ingelfinger rule decry it as little more than "a marketing device that allows privately owned medical journals substantial income from publishing copyrighted reports based on taxpayer-supported research.
Kassirer, "The Ingelfinger Rule Revisited," NEJM 325 (1991): 1371-73; B.
Altman, "The Ingelfinger Rule, Embargoes, and Journal Peer Review--Part 1" Lancet 347 (1996): 1382-86; L.
Fontanarosa, Flanagin, and DeAneglis, "The Journal's Policy regarding Release of Information to the Public"; Fontanarosa and Flanagin, "Prepublication Release of Medical Research"; Angell and Kassirer, "The Ingelfinger Rule Revisited.
There are two longstanding rules at The New England Journal of Medicine: a pre-publication embargo date and the Ingelfinger rule.
The issues surrounding the Ingelfinger rule are much more complicated.
The Ingelfinger rule has caused all sorts of friction.
Angell notes that some researchers use the Ingelfinger rule to their benefit.