Interesting little essay from Inside Higher Ed about the science embargo system.
One factor, quite clearly, is the extraordinary deference that the scientific and medical establishments receive in society. Few other institutions are given the freedom of action in society that science and medicine have enjoyed. Science and medical journalists have not been immune to the immense gravitational forces exerted by science and medicine, and the embargo system is symptomatic of the deference that journalists pay to the scientific and medical establishment.
The whole journal system is still little removed from the origins of scientific publishing, where societies published peer-reviewed materials on their own. Now, while most of the smaller journals (that is, pretty much anything that isn’t Science, Nature, PNAS or Cell) are published by a few major publishers, like Elsevier, there has been little change in the science publications system since 19th century, or so it seems.
For a while, even just a few years ago, many journals held onto a print publication date for an embargo, even though you could already find the article online. The article goes on to mention a bit about online publishing through BioMedNet and how it has created artificial embargoes just to drum up some news-y drama.
Generally, I feel it would be nice to can the whole system. Put together an online database of articles where anyone can post — individual societies (like AAAS or NAS) can then set up a peer-committee that will bestow those articles with a Stamp of Peer Approval. Or offer suggestions for authors to how their article can meet their standards. Just a thought.
That won’t happen, obviously, as the current system is too much of a part of science society. It would kill embargoes, however, which I think would be a good thing for journalism. Of course, I write press releases based on these artificial hooks all the time, so perhaps I should just shut up now.