ABR, JEM, and advertising
txs at po.cwru.edu
Tue Feb 15 09:02:49 EST 2000
I agree with you 110%!!!!!!!!
"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. The
> JEM case isn't quite as egregious, since JEM owns the copyright in the
> latter case while Remarq did not, but the difference is a technical legal
> one (if it exists at all), and doesn't alter the ethical problem.
> I've sent complaints to JEM and to ABR.
> I know that this post is questionably on-topic for the group. Sorry.
> It's something I found infuriating. Perhaps I'm too idealistic, and
> science today is just another sales tool, I dunno.
> Ian York (iayork at panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
> "-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
> very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
More information about the Methods