In scientific publishing, the 1969 Ingelfinger rule originally stipulated that The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) would not publish findings that had been published elsewhere, in other media or in other journals. The rule was subsequently adopted by several other scientific journals, and has shaped scientific publishing ever since. Historically it has also helped to ensure that the journal's content is fresh and does not duplicate content previously reported elsewhere, and seeks to protect the scientific embargo system.
The Ingelfinger rule has been seen as having the aim of preventing authors from performing duplicate publications which would unduly inflate their publication record. On the other hand, it has also been stated that the real reason for the Ingelfinger rule is to protect the journals' revenue stream, and with the increase in popularity of preprint servers  such as arXiv, bioRxiv, and HAL many journals have loosened their requirements concerning the Ingelfinger rule. In a defense of the policy, the journal said in an editorial that the practice discouraged scientists from talking to the media before their work was peer reviewed.
The rule is named for Franz J. Ingelfinger, the NEJM editor-in-chief who enunciated it in 1969. An earlier version of the policy had been expressed in 1960 by Samuel Goudsmit, editor of the Physical Review Letters, but did not become as well known.
- Marshall, E (1998). "Franz Ingelfinger's Legacy Shaped Biology Publishing". Science. 282 (5390): 861–3, 865–7. doi:10.1126/science.282.5390.861. PMID 9841429.
- "Ingelfinger rule definition". Medicine.net. 13 June 2000. Retrieved 2011-08-20.
- Schachtman, NA (20 June 2014). "Selective Leaking — Breaking Ingelfinger's Rule". Schachtman Law Blog. Retrieved 2015-05-23.
- Lariviere, V; Gingras, Y (2009). "On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980-2007)". arXiv:0906.4019 [physics.soc-ph].
- Heidary, Fatemeh; Gharebaghi, Reza (2021-05-31). "COVID-19 impact on research and publication ethics". Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Ophthalmology. 10 (1): 1–4. doi:10.51329/mehdiophthal1414. ISSN 2322-3219. S2CID 236407601.
- Borgman, CL (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: information, infrastructure, and the Internet. MIT Press. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-262-02619-2.
- Angell, M; Kassirer, J (1991). "The Ingelfinger Rule Revisited". The New England Journal of Medicine. 325 (19): 1371–1373. doi:10.1056/NEJM199111073251910. PMID 1669838.
- Lewenstein, BV (1988). "It's Not Really the Relman Rule". ScienceWriters. 36 (2): 17–18.
- Relman, AS (1981). "The Ingelfinger Rule". The New England Journal of Medicine. 305 (14): 824–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM198110013051408. PMID 7266634.
- Spain, A (26 February 2011). "Casting a critical eye on the embargo system: one year of Embargo Watch". Association of British Science Writers. Retrieved 2017-03-24.
- Altman, LK (1996). "The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review–Part 1". The Lancet. 347 (9012): 1382–6. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)91016-8. PMID 8637347. S2CID 44524038.
- Toy, J (2002). "The Ingelfinger Rule: Franz Ingelfinger at the New England Journal of Medicine 1967–77" (PDF). Science Editor. 25 (6): 195–198.
- Harnad, S (2000). "Ingelfinger Over-Ruled: The Role of the Web in the Future of Refereed Medical Journal Publishing". The Lancet Perspectives. 356: s16. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)92002-6. PMID 11191471.
- White, E (2014). "Why the Ecology Letters editorial board should reconsider its No vote on preprints". Jabberwocky Ecology.
- Desjardins-Proulx, P; White, EP; Adamson, JJ; Ram, K; Poisot, T; Gravel, D (2013). "The Case for Open Preprints in Biology". PLOS Biology. 11 (5): e1001563. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001563. PMC 3653830. PMID 23690752.