According to database provider Lexis-Nexis, newspaper stories and articles on biotechnology have increased almost 10-fold since 1991. This should be good news for biotechnology journals. But the fact is that most media coverage of biotechnology research originates not from embargoed papers, but from prematurely publicized material never validated by peer review. This trend is becoming more common as scientists forego the time-consuming process of scientific review and opt instead to announce their findings directly on the airwaves, in press releases, at press conferences, or during media interviews.

For those involved in the business of biotechnology this might not matter much. After all, some forms of prepublication of research are probably unavoidable. Publicly traded companies have a duty to inform their stock holders of significant progress in R&D. They often need to release preliminary results to convince investors to part with cash, temporarily inflate stock price, or even to boost market share for a particular product. Likewise, university technology transfer offices need to raise the profile of their research to attract corporate sponsorship and licensing.

But prepublication of preliminary results does raise problems for those who intend to formally present their findings in the scientific literature at a later date. Put simply, researchers that have previously publicized or reported their main results and conclusions elsewhere in press releases, press conferences, or media interviews will find their papers disqualified for publication in Nature Biotechnology. There are exceptions to the rule—articles presented to professional colleagues at scientific meetings are not regarded as prepublication. Even in this case, however, authors should be careful not discuss their data directly with reporters. Not surprisingly, Nature Biotechnology also regards the disclosure of data in advertisements as another variety of prepublication.

Given the constant scramble for eyeballs and attention, it is increasingly important to enforce embargoes on papers and ensure that journals that claim to publish original research do indeed do so. Embargoed papers provide research that has been validated by peer review and careful editorial evaluation. By including appropriate caveats and objective presentation, they provide a context for research, which in turn promotes the quality of scientific reporting by journalists. Researchers interested in submitting papers to Nature Biotechnology must consider carefully the tradeoffs between rapid public dissemination of their data before submission to the journal. Press releases serve a function for those with a financial stake in biotechnology. But they are no place for the presentation of scientific advances.