This scientific embargo system, in essence, protects a journal more so than it does a scientist. By assuring that content is new and fresh, journals are able to maintain a monopoly on the market. Controlling what information gets shared, when it gets shared, and for how much it gets shared for restricts timely communication, access to findings, and the reuse of them. Arguably, scientists remain largely monogamous
in their journal choices due to policies like the Ingelfinger rule. But with the rise of new ways to communicate findings like preprints and new models of peer review like open post-publication peer review, is it time to reconsider the Ingelfinger rule or do away with it all together?