The cosy embargo system operated by academic journals is bad news for science coverage - and for journalists too. That's not just my opinion, but also that of former BBC science correspondent David Whitehouse:
Journals say the embargo is a good thing. They say it creates a level playing field among journalists and concentrates attention on serious research that has been approved by other scientists. They add that it allows journalists time to work on their reports, carry out filming and interviews, so that they get the science right. All this is self-serving poppycock and patronising to boot.
Maxine Clarke, Publishing Executive Editor of Nature, attempts a rebuttal on the Nautilus blog. Well, read the mass-produced syndicated crap which masquerades as science coverage on the news wires Maxine, and ask yourself: if journalists had to get off their butts and find their own stories rather than being spoon-fed by journals, would we have a more informed public debate on science?