Abstract :
Peer review is one of the main reasons put forward in support of the Ingelfinger rule. As the second of the two-part article The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review shows, however, the economic interests in controlling information may be equally important. Not least is the ruleʹs contribution to journal profits by raising circulation and advertising revenues. An additional effect has been to frighten authors into silence, sometimes delaying the release of important findings that bear on the public health. Moreover, the resulting poor cooperation between researchers and journalists risks unintentional errors in reporting. Unless there is evidence that the rule improves and assures the quality of what journals publish, the 27-year-old Ingelfinger rule should be dropped.
