Beyond the Ingelfinger Rule: the intellectual property ethics after the end of biomedical journals' monopoly

According to the so-called Ingelfinger Rule (IR), biomedical journals do not accept for publication papers which have already been publicized elsewhere. This rule was subjected to fierce criticism which was mainly based on the fact that authors transfer the intellectual rights of their work to the journals. With the emergence of the Internet, the scientific community has a golden opportunity to re-evaluate the IR concept. Scientists no longer have to depend on the debatable benefits (i.e. publicity and review) stemming from journal publications; rather they can be free to explore novel communication opportunities and, subsequently, to tackle the emerging intellectual property issues. This approach should take into account the tight bond between applied research and the world economy, the need for teamwork instead of individual effort for effective scientific research, and the added value of journal publications. Based on such an analysis, it would appear that the inherent characteristics of the Internet promote a re-assessment of the intellectual property theory on three levels: the cognitive (the way in which knowledge is made up from its building blocks), the morphological (the use of hypertext) and finally the sociological (the formation of virtual scientific communities). It is concluded that publishing on the Internet necessitates a different approach to the question of intellectual property based on the primal values of science. This can be achieved only if the scientific community embraces and nourishes the academic nature of the Internet as well as laying down the rules to control the dissemination of ideas without the intervention of non-scientific third parties.