期刊文献+

科技期刊和大众媒体对科学新闻传播优先权的争夺--Nature实证研究之八 被引量:1

Competition Between Scientific Journals and Mass Media for the Priority of Science News Communication:An Empirical Study of Nature
下载PDF
导出
摘要 科学新闻的商业价值,在当下中国还没有进入期刊及其出版者的视野,而在西方国家,科学新闻已成为多年来各方激烈争夺的重要商业资源。为掌控科学成果发布的话语权,《新英格兰医学杂志》在20世纪70年代率先制定“媒体禁制令”,禁止科学家和大众媒体在科技期刊发表学术论文之前报道论文中的研究成果,如今,它已成为西方顶级科技期刊奉行的行业准则之一。本文通过重要实例,对“媒体禁制令”的实际操作过程和成效,施行以来学术期刊和大众媒体之间争夺科学新闻传播优先权的博弈,生物制药公司和NASA等机构对待媒体禁制令的不同方式和态度,进行了深入分析和考察,在此基础上明确揭示了欧美科技期刊施行“媒体禁制令”的商业实质。 Presently, journals and their publishers in China have not yet paid any attention to the commercial value of science news which has become an important commercial resource fiercely competed by all parties for many years in western countries. In the 1970 s, The New England Journal of Medicine took the lead in implementing “News Embargo”, which forbade scientists and the mass media from reporting research findings before they were published, and had become one of the guidelines for top scientific journals in the west. This paper makes an in-depth analysis of the actual operation process and effectiveness of “News Embargo”, the game between academic journals and the mass media since the implementation of “News Embargo”, and the different ways and attitudes of biopharmaceutical companies and NASA held against “News Embargo”. Accordingly, it clearly reveals the commercial essence of “News Embargo” implemented by European and American top scientific journals.
作者 江晓原 穆蕴秋 JIANG Xiaoyuan;MU Yunqiu(School of History and Culture of Science,Shanghai Jiao Tong University,Shanghai 200240,China)
出处 《上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》 CSSCI 北大核心 2022年第3期89-102,共14页 Journal of Shanghai Jiao tong University(Philosophy and Social Sciences)
关键词 科技期刊 大众传媒 英格尔芬格规则 媒体禁制令 scientific journal mass media Ingelfinger Rule News Embargo
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献21

  • 1http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/index.html#a1.1.
  • 2Chew M,Villanueva EV,Van Der Weyden M B.Life and times of the impact factor:retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals(1994-2005)and their Editors'views[J].Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.2007.100(3):142-50.
  • 3Kathleen D.Hopkins,Laragh Gollogly,Sarah Ogden&Richard Horton.Strange results mean it's worth checking ISI data[J].Nature.2002-02-14.415:732.
  • 4E.Garfield.Nature:112Years of Continuous Publication of High Impact Research and Science Journalism[J].Current Contents.1981-10-05.40:5-12.
  • 5E.Garfield.Science:101Years of Publication of High Impact Science Journal[J].Current Contents.1981-09-28.39:253-259.
  • 6The impact factor game[J].Plos Medicine.2006-06.3(6):707-709.
  • 7E.Garfield.Preface to Journal Citation Reports-Vol.9of SCI.published by Institute for Scientific Information(philadephia).1975.7-8.
  • 8Wilson I.T.Did the Atlantic Close and Then Re-Open?[J].Nature.1966.211:676-681.
  • 9E.Garfield.The Agony and the Ecstasy-The History and the Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor[J].International Congress on Peer Review And Biomedical Publication Chicago.2005-09-16.
  • 10Garfield E.The history and meaning of the journal impact factor[J].The Journal of the American Medical Association.2006.295(1):90-93.

共引文献22

同被引文献15

引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部