The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has recently made the decision to restrict certain publications from advanced access to its embargoed journal articles. This new policy comes as a surprise to many news outlets that cater to physician readers as they will no longer meet the criteria for embargoed access. The Director of strategic communications & media relations at NEJM Group, Dawn Peters, mentioned that some applications from MedPage Today writers have been denied due to the publication “primarily serving clinicians and health care professionals.” This change in policy has sparked discussions among the medical journalism community, raising questions about the reasons behind the decision.
Ivan Oransky, MD, a prominent figure in medical journalism, expressed his concerns regarding NEJM’s updated policy. He believes that the explanation provided by NEJM suggests that the journal now views anyone writing for a clinical audience as competition and seeks to restrict access to its flagship publication. Oransky, who has extensive experience in the field of medical journalism, criticized NEJM’s decision, stating that it goes against the principles of free and transparent flow of clinical information. He also highlighted the importance of the embargo system in ensuring accurate reporting of medical studies by providing reporters with enough time to analyze and understand the content.
Several experts in the field of medical journalism have criticized NEJM’s updated policy, calling it a “really bad idea” for various reasons. George Lundberg, MD, former editor-in-chief of JAMA, emphasized that the embargoed access system was primarily designed to maintain a journal’s image and a publisher’s brand, rather than serving the interests of the medical community. He described the policy as being driven by market share considerations, rather than the pursuit of disseminating valuable clinical information to a wider audience.
One of the concerns raised by the updated policy is its impact on freelancers who contribute to a combination of consumer and trade publications. NEJM’s restriction on access to embargoed material for freelancers has led to confusion and uncertainty within the freelance journalism community. The updated language on the NEJM Media Center homepage specifies that only freelancers producing content for non-clinical audiences will be eligible for access. This shift in eligibility criteria has raised questions about the inclusivity of NEJM’s policy towards freelance journalists.
The New England Journal of Medicine’s decision to limit access to embargoed journal articles has generated a significant amount of discussion within the medical journalism community. While NEJM justifies the policy change as a response to the evolving landscape of medical publishing, critics argue that it will hinder the free flow of information and restrict access to valuable clinical insights. The impact of this decision on news outlets, reporters, and freelancers remains to be seen, but it has undoubtedly sparked a debate on the role of embargoed access in the dissemination of medical research.
Leave a Reply