[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: So what are the rules about SVP and publishing? Or talking about presentations?
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:53 PM, B tH <email@example.com> wrote:
> As a total neophyte on this subject,
> I'm curious as to why the 'secrecy' is necessary?
To answer the question in the subject line, here's a direct quote from
the SVP abstract book of this year: "Observers are reminded that the
technical content of the SVP sessions is not to be reported in any
medium (print, electronic, or Internet) without the prior permission
of the authors."
And to follow up on Mike's response. . .
1) The threat/perceived threat of being scooped by other scientists.
2) Abstracts (and presentations) are only preliminary. Many a
discussion on the DML about an abstract or presentation has been later
revealed to be hopelessly premature, with rampant speculation on a
topic for which there is little supporting information. Hence the
frequent reminder to "wait for the paper." The primary investigators
should be able to complete their work without 50 people who haven't
seen the specimen telling them how wrong the interpretations are.
3) High profile science glam magz have rather stringent criteria for
acceptance of articles. If it is perceived that a find has been
already publicized (hence hurting the journal's chance to be the
exclusive first outlet for the research), the paper may be rejected.
Because (rightly or wrongly) a paper in Science or Nature can have
huge impacts on a scientist's career (tenure, promotion, hiring, grant
funding), many folks (quite rightly, in my opinion) get a little
touchy about unauthorized discussion of unpublished results. Whether
or not anyone has *actually* been hurt by a DML posting is another
issue altogether, but perception is important.
Just my three cents,