ABR, JEM, and advertising

Nick Theodorakis nicholas_theodorakis at urmc.rochester.edu
Thu Feb 10 20:53:17 EST 2000


In article <87uti1$6eq$1 at news.panix.com>, iayork at panix.com (Ian
A.
York) wrote:
>
>While reading the latest Journal of Experimental Medicine, I
was dismayed
>to find that they're allowing a method of advertising I think is
>unacceptable for an academic journal.  In the body of an
article (not in
>banner ads or off to the side; actually in the article), the
word
>"affinity" is highlighted.  It clicks through to the home page
of Affinist
>BioReagents.  In other words, JEM has marked up the article,
converting
>meaningful words into advertisements.
>
>This not only cheapens the article itself and raises questions
about the
>integrity of the journal (will they start demanding that
authors put in
>buzzwords?  Change data to allow more product placement?), but,
it seems
>to me, is probably questionable legally--certainly morally.  The
>assumption is that the authors are responsible for the content
of an
>article.  This sort of thing implies that the authors are
endorsing
>ABR; more likely, they don't even know that their words are
being used
>this way.
>
>I know that Remarq was tring a similar approach using Usenet
posts they
>had archived, and that received a storm of protest from people
who
>resented having their words used for advertising without
permission.

[...]

But Remarq is still doing it, I'm afraid.

I agree that the practice is reprehensible for a Journal.



Nick Theodorakis

nicholas_theodorakis at urmc.rochester.edu

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!





More information about the Methods mailing list