乌鸦传媒

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is cutting off certain publications from advanced access to its embargoed journal articles.

News outlets that report for physician readers will no longer meet criteria for embargoed access, Dawn Peters, director of strategic communications & media relations at NEJM Group, said in an email to 乌鸦传媒.

Access will unwind as reporters apply to renew their media credentials with the journal, Peters said, confirming that some applications from 乌鸦传媒 writers have been denied because the publication "primarily serves clinicians and health care professionals."

The exact reason for the change isn't clear, but Peters said that medical publishing "has changed considerably, as have our own publications" since NEJM introduced its embargoed access policy decades ago.

She noted that journal parent company NEJM Group has grown to include "several journals to which physicians and clinical professionals can subscribe." That has happened as the number of media outlets focused on medical professionals have increased, she said.

"Much of the content in these media outlets summarize articles in our journals, tailored at a level of understanding for clinicians who can access this information directly from us," Peters said. "We must take this into consideration when granting advanced media access to our content."

Ivan Oransky, MD, who has held leadership positions at medical news publications focused on healthcare professionals over the last two decades (including at 乌鸦传媒), said the explanation "strongly suggests that NEJM now sees anyone writing for a clinical audience as competition and is therefore restricting access of its flagship publication from the competition."

"What NEJM is doing here is restricting access and apparently trying to grow their market share," added Oransky, who has also and taught medical journalism at New York University for decades. "They're going to prioritize that over the free and transparent and sometimes critical flow of clinical information."

Oransky said it's a "really bad policy" for a host of reasons. The embargo system was developed so that reporters would have enough time to report on medical studies accurately without the threat of being scooped -- which could lead to inaccurate, sloppy, or rushed reporting.

"This seems like it's a way backward with embargoes," he said, noting that either all media should be able to access studies under embargo, or no member of the press should receive early access.

George Lundberg, MD, former editor-in-chief of JAMA, said it's "amazing how long [the embargoed access system] has endured."

"This embargo approach was always mostly about preserving a journal's image and a publisher's brand," he said. "It is really all about market share."

When asked if the updated policy applies to freelancers, who may work for a combination of consumer and trade publications, Peters said each application will be handled individually. To qualify, freelancers must write "regular, original news content ... for publications that serve the general public."

Indeed, language on the pertaining to freelancers was , moving eligibility from "Freelance journalists and editors covering health care topics for news organizations" to "Freelance reporters covering health care topics for organizations producing content for non-clinical audiences."

"What is this, like a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy?" Oransky asked. "I can't pitch [乌鸦传媒], I can only pitch the New York Times? It's not well thought out."

Peters did not confirm whether NEJM also has restricted access to embargoed material for other physician-focused publications, including Medscape, Healio, and MJH Life Sciences publications. Instead, she reiterated that individual reporters' applications will be considered when they renew their access.

Peters added that NEJM would provide 乌鸦传媒 reporters with a complimentary subscription, "which will provide them with access to content upon publication."

Joyce Frieden and Cheryl Clark contributed reporting to this story.

Comment