The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has recently announced a change in its policy regarding embargoed access to its journal articles. According to Dawn Peters, director of strategic communications & media relations at NEJM Group, news outlets targeting physician readers will no longer have access to embargoed articles. This decision has caused some controversy among journalists and medical professionals.
The reason behind this change is not entirely clear, but Peters mentioned that the landscape of medical publishing has evolved since NEJM first introduced its embargoed access policy. With the expansion of NEJM Group to include several journals catering to physicians and clinical professionals, the need to limit access to specific publications has become apparent. Peters emphasized that many media outlets summarize articles from NEJM journals in a way that is easily digestible for clinicians, which may diminish the necessity of early access for certain publications.
Prominent figures in medical journalism, such as Ivan Oransky, MD, have expressed concerns regarding this new policy. Oransky believes that restricting access based on the targeted audience of a publication could hinder the free flow of clinical information. By limiting access, NEJM may be prioritizing market share over transparency and critical reporting, which are essential in the field of medical journalism.
Oransky criticized the decision, highlighting that the embargo system was originally designed to ensure accurate and thorough reporting of medical studies. By restricting access to certain publications, NEJM may be undermining the principles of transparent journalism. George Lundberg, MD, former editor-in-chief of JAMA, echoed similar sentiments, suggesting that the embargo system has primarily been used to protect the image and brand of journals, rather than promoting honest and open information sharing.
Questions have arisen regarding how this new policy will affect freelance journalists who often contribute to a variety of publications. Peters mentioned that applications from freelancers will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on those who produce content for non-clinical audiences. This shift in eligibility criteria has raised concerns about the inclusivity and fairness of the updated policy.
As the debate surrounding NEJM’s decision continues, the implications for the journalism community remain uncertain. The balance between protecting a journal’s reputation and fostering open communication within the medical field is a complex issue that requires careful consideration. Moving forward, it will be crucial for NEJM and other publications to find a middle ground that upholds journalistic integrity while adapting to the evolving landscape of medical publishing.