Next Article in Journal
How Great Was the “Great Divide of Nature and Culture” in Europe? Philippe Descola’s Argument under Scrutinity
Next Article in Special Issue
Beyond Innovation and Use, or Why We Must Follow Technologies through Time
Previous Article in Journal
The World Court and the Iran-Contra Scandal: Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice, Public Opinion, and the Origins of Iran-Contra
Previous Article in Special Issue
The History of Fieldwork
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Essay

Scientific Publishing: Agents, Genres, Technique and the Making of Knowledge

Institut Interuniversitari López Piñero, Universitat de València, 46003 València, Spain
Histories 2022, 2(4), 516-541; https://doi.org/10.3390/histories2040035
Submission received: 1 June 2022 / Revised: 1 October 2022 / Accepted: 20 October 2022 / Published: 11 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue (New) Histories of Science, in and beyond Modern Europe)

Abstract

:
The history of scientific publishing has been one of the most topical research subjects in the history of science during the last few decades. It has furthered scholarly communication with other disciplines, such as book history, the history of education and communication studies. It has contributed to the development of new conceptual and methodological tools for the study of the material culture of print, the replication of scientific knowledge in various media and the social appropriation of knowledge through reading. This field of research offers exemplary results on sources such as journals, encyclopedias and textbooks, and on configurations such as disciplines, specialization and the practices associated with our contemporary knowledge system and communication environment, which cut across academic departments.

If there is a practice central to the making of science across the centuries, it is publishing; a lasting and ubiquitous object in its creed, the scientific treatise; a major cutting-edge instrument, the scientific journal. As a research field, scientific publishing is as broad as the etymology of “publishing”, which, in most languages, means tout court, the act of making public. What makes publishing scientific is not only its subject matter, but also the closely related histories of publishing and science. Through the centuries, their entanglement has become increasingly complex, including an enlarged number of historical actors, changing practices and new meanings for the products of printing, their conception, circulation and appropriation. It has also attracted the attention of a wide range of historical specialisms, interested, in one way or another, in science and publishing: the history of science, technology and medicine, but also, book history, history of writing, history of reading, history of education, bibliography, art history, media studies, science communication and the sociology of science.
Scientific publishing has produced innovation within the broad field of publishing. Its analysis has contributed to understanding the book, the periodical and other publication genres as places for the social construction of authorship and procedures of knowledge legitimation and standardization. It has also highlighted the epistemologically active role of readers, the commercial but also intellectual importance of booksellers and publishers, the fruitful relationship between textual and visual representation and the agency of the material culture of print and science in the shaping of knowledge. With the growth of this field of research and the intellectual (and publishing) fragmentation characteristic of academic specialization, it now covers a large terrain divided by periods and disciplines. It presents two major focuses on books and journals and deals with topics, such as the making of scientific disciplines, education and popular science, respectively (Pardo Tomás 1997a; Johns 1998b, 2013; Topham 2000a; Leitão 2004; Lightman 2004; Fyfe 2020; Simon 2016).
In many ways, the product of interdisciplinary and international communication, our historical understanding of scientific publishing remains though afflicted by academic and cultural niches. With the goal of counteracting these problems of communication, this paper offers a concise vademecum for historians aiming to gain a better knowledge of the global role of publishing science for the making of knowledge in general. Moreover, it uses an interdisciplinary, international and intercultural approach in order to highlight the importance of this field for new historical research challenges.
The history of science, technology and medicine started to depart half a century ago from its original focus on ideas, bio-bibliography and institutions, to a new focus on practices. Historical episodes, such as the scientific revolution(s)—which were central to their historiography—had since then, been reinterpreted with new perspectives on the role of experiments, performance and the tools and spaces through which legitimate scientific knowledge was made (Golinski 2005). Treatises, journals and textbooks were classic sources in the research routine for historians of science. With few exceptions, their ubiquity made them, for decades, immune to thorough methodological scrutiny (Drake 1970). The practical turn, however, favored new outlooks that permeated the discipline across periods and subject areas and relocated textual and visual knowledge as fundamental practices in the making of science.
Historians of the book recognized, early on, the central role of scientific knowledge and its practitioners in the making of the Renaissance through the printing press and they contributed, thus, decisively to the emergence of the history of science as a discipline. Moreover, book history started to emerge as a modern discipline through a creative integration of intellectual debates across social, economic and cultural history, the history of science and technology, literature studies, linguistics and anthropology, among others (Febvre and Martin 1958; Eisenstein 1979; Wilding 2016; Tesnière 2014a). Print and the making of trust through print were essential for the mathematician and (natural) philosopher alike, together with observation and experimentation developed at the laboratory, astronomical observatory and cabinet of curiosities. Historians of science recognized the power of books and the agency of the printing press in the decay of Ptolemaic astronomy, Galenic medicine and Aristotelian natural philosophy. However, they did not endorse axiomatic formulations on the fixity of printed matter and its leverage in the making of trust through circulation. In contrast, they have advocated for a multi-causal investigation of these historical objects and phenomena and their appropriation (Westman 1980; Grafton 1980; Johns 1998a; Leitão 2004).1 In this new historiographical framework, it is no longer possible to assume that a treatise, such as Nicolaus Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, was a path-breaking work that we can consider as a classic, without actually investigating how many people read it, who they are and how they read it (Gingerich 2004; Grafton 1991). Moreover, the pantheon of scientists might also be opened to authors of hitherto doubtful historiographical status, when proof exists of the large circulation and significant appropriation of their work. Understanding the historical value of highly abstruse treatises, such as Copernicus’, could be as relevant as focusing on much simpler but widely read (and commented) introductory textbooks, such as Johannes de Sacrobosco’s Tractatus de Sphaera (Valleriani and Ottone 2022; Simon 2016).
The historical problematization of scientific publishing has required a connected questioning of science communication, bringing together conceptual frameworks, such as Robert Darnton’s communication circuit, Roger Chartier’s cultural appropriation, media theory and classic history of science concepts by epistemologists Ludwik Fleck and Thomas S. Kuhn, within the theoretical framework of the social construction of scientific knowledge (Westman 1980; Topham 2000a; Johns 1998b; Secord 2004; Blair et al. 2021). Darnton emphasized the diversity of agents (printers, publishers, booksellers, readers), their multi-directional relationships and the role of the technical and economic practices of the book trade in the making of knowledge. Chartier remarked that defining popular culture by the distribution of texts in society was misleading since there were, in fact, no popular objects per se. Historians should focus on studying the ways in which texts were appropriated, to understand their meanings—which were often different to those assigned by authors (Topham 2000a, 1992; Darnton 1979; Chartier 1984; Simon 2009).
In the 1930s, Ludwik Fleck had already noted the blurry boundaries between the communication and the making of scientific knowledge. He conceptualized scientific practice through thought collectives configuring and constrained by a thought style, being the common stock of knowledge and culture binding the latter. A thought collective is structured by a small esoteric circle (formed by those who have expertise in the questions defining its activity) and a large exoteric circle (comprehending those who have not). The relationship between esoteric circles and exoteric circles stressed the transformative and multidirectional role of communication in the making of science. The thought style of a collective was configured, firstly, by communicative action within the esoteric circle and secondly, by communication with the exoteric circle. Nevertheless, exoteric or non-expert knowledge of science—commonly called popular science—being the largest part of everyone’s knowledge, acted, in turn, decisively on the work of the expert. Thus, communication between esoteric and exoteric circles had an essential role in the configuration of thought styles. In addition, Fleck offered a useful characterization of the genres and agents of scientific knowledge: a thought style was represented by vademecum science, as the carrier of common expert knowledge and the tool binding a thought collective. It was opposed to journal science in being comprehensive and consensus based. It differed from popular science in being critical and organized. In spite of being the repository of consensual expert knowledge, the vademecum was also shaped by the fact that every communicative action made knowledge more exoteric. Communication always transformed knowledge and it acted towards the constitution of thought styles based on social and intellectual consensus (Fleck 1935; Simon 2009).
In the 1960s, Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions opened a new chapter in the history of science and had a major role in popularizing this discipline across the social sciences (Brush 2000; Richards and Daston 2016; Devlin and Bokulich 2012). For Kuhn, a special characteristic of science was that training was conducted through textbooks to an extent unknown in other fields of knowledge. University science students were rarely encouraged to start experimental investigations or to read the most contemporary articles in their field. Moreover, in contrast to other disciplines in the social and medical sciences, all science textbooks presented a surprising uniformity in conceptual structure and differed only in subject matter or pedagogical detail. Furthermore, according to Kuhn, textbook narratives falsified the actual logic of scientific research in favor of instructional coherence. Textbook science was the driving agent in the making of scientific knowledge through education and it involved indoctrination. Although this level of systematization was not present before the nineteenth century, works commonly characterized as classics, such as the treatises by Aristotle, Ptolemy, Newton, Franklin, Lavoisier or Lyell, could play a similar role to textbooks in representing consensual paradigms. Overall, for Kuhn, textbooks were a powerful agent in the making of scientific knowledge in spite of their contested status and low appreciation (Kuhn 1962; Simon 2016). Counteracting the latter, subsequent research on science textbooks has provided robust perspectives on their value to address questions that are central to scientific practice and the making of knowledge. This new historiography of science highlights the immense potential of textbooks for interdisciplinary research and the writing of national, international and transnational history, through studies of production, distribution and appropriation. Science education has had a major role in the rise of major publishing firms and, thus, it constitutes an exceptional playground for historical specialisms with distinct but analogous developments, such as the histories of science, education and the book, respectively (Simon 2011, 2015, 2016).
Paradigms or thought styles configured through scientific publishing were not restricted to the “utilitarian” agency of textbooks. In a classic paper linking a highly esoteric field of knowledge (quantum mechanics) with the cultural and socio-political thrust of the Weimar Republic, Paul Forman analyzed the changing thoughts of physicists, through a wide range of literature genres that accounted for what physicists heard, read, talked and believed. These included written accounts of public lectures, academic addresses, correspondence, handbook articles, general science periodicals, newspapers, specialized scientific journals and popular philosophy books. In spite of not explicitly professing this approach, in many ways, Forman’s article could be seen as a history of science publishing and reading at the service of a highly ambitious investigation of the social roots of scientific change (Forman 1971; Simon 2022).
It is clear, therefore, that the history of scientific publishing is deeply interwoven into the historiographical fabric of science. Naturally, the interest for print, publication genres and reading was long ago in the toolkit of historians of modern science, partly because of the cross-disciplinary nature of their historiographical practice and historical research objects (Drake 1970; Rose 1975; Darnton 1979; Eamon 1984, 1985a, 1985b, 1994; Grafton 1991; Pardo Tomás 1991, 2004; Siraisi 1997; Carlino 1999; Gorman 2002). According to Robert Darnton (1979, pp. 2–3), French scholars had the merit of transforming book history into a standard branch of professional history, but their focus was rather quantitative and sociological (“macroscopic surveys of book production or microscopic analysis of individual libraries”). In contrast, British scholars paid more attention to the processes of book production and distribution. He expected that “By mixing British empiricism with the French concern for broad-gauged social history it might be possible to develop an original blend of the history of books in America”.
An excellent example of these trends is illustrated by the efforts of a team directed by José M. López Piñero with the ambition of establishing history of science as a professional discipline in Spain. López Piñero (1979) presented a powerful research agenda in the mold of (French) histoire totale, equally attentive to social history, quantitative bibliography, prosopography and information theory. He aspired to tear apart the historiographical myth of modern Spain as a wasteland for science due to inquisitorial repression and reclaim its part in the scientific revolution—then foundational for the historiography of science. He substantiated his historical analysis on the collaborative preparation of a series of specialized historical bibliographies of science, medicine and technology works (manuscript and print) (López Piñero et al. 1973, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1987). Its analysis demonstrated at least that there was a significant scientific production—similar to that of other European nations—which had not been considered by previous scholars. It clearly unmasked the rationale of the Black Legend2, while developing a cultural and human capital for the history of science in Spain. It was less successful in explaining the causes of Spanish scientific decay in the seventeenth century, in spite of proposing various relevant sociopolitical factors. The analysis was indeed statistical and social, although not merely erudite.
Subsequently, the team refined this approach in producing big pictures on book production, circulation and consumption in modern Spain through monographs (Pardo Tomás 1991, 2004) and chapters in panoramic reference works on the history of science, medicine and technology in the crowns of Castille and Aragon (García Ballester et al. 2002; García Ballester 2002; Arrizabalaga 2002; Pardo Tomás 1997b, 2002; González Bueno and Nozal 2002). Their perspectives were both quantitative and qualitative and well informed both on European scholarship in book history and debates among American historians of science about radical contributions, such as those by Eisenstein (1979) (Martínez Vidal 1992; Pardo Tomás 1997a). The international relevance of these historical investigations would become ever clearer through the historiographical evidence of the impact across Europe and the Atlantic of the empirical practices gathered in sixteenth-century Portuguese and Spanish science books (Cañizares-Esguerra 2006a, 2006b; Barrera-Osorio 2006).
The historiography of (scientific) publishing obviously stems from particular traditions in each country and region of the world. Furthermore, as a counterpoint, the major historiographical agency given to print (over other forms of communication) is clearly biased by the Western project of world colonization (Mignolo 1995; McKenzie 1984; Cañizares-Esguerra 2001; Calvo 2003; Cherniack 1994; Chow 2004; Brokaw and Chow 2005; Mun 2013). Complementarily, this historiographical bias is also shaped by the outdated (but still common) question of why there might have been a “scientific revolution” in Europe and not elsewhere (e.g., China, Japan, Korea, India, Islam). This obsolete question is particularly compromised by considering that a printing culture developed in China much earlier than in Europe (Graham 1973; Twitchett 1983; Tsien 1985; Kim 1998, 2004; Barrett 2008; O’Brien 2009; Blair 2011; Elman 2007, 2017). The civilization of the (science, technology and medicine) book in China and other Asian countries (e.g., Korea, Japan and India) has had its own special developments in all areas, including printing techniques, writing traditions and genres, practices of manuscript and book collecting, circulation and reading and bibliographical scholarship (McDermott 2006; Elman and Minkowski 2018; Marcon 2015; Pollock 2006; Minkowski 2010; Raina 2010; Preisendanz 2018). The exposition of Asia to “Western” print culture in the early modern period through the Jesuit missions was undoubtedly of major relevance for the transformation of science, technology and medicine in the region (Pingyi 2010; Raina 2010; Jami 2012; Golvers 2012, 2013). However, the scholarship on this topic has gone much beyond, with major contributions to topical historiographical issues, such as the production and use of popular encyclopedias, medical books and journals, and the integration of science and religion (Rawski (1979); Furth (1999); Elman (2005, 2015); Bretelle-Establet and Chemla (2007); Bréard (2010); Jami (2012); Burke and McDermott (2015); Chemla (2020); Lean (2014); Nappi (2009); Hinrichs (2011); Trambailo (2014); Bretelle-Establet (2015, 2022), Kurtz (2010); Fan (2014); and Tsien (1962); Brokaw (2007); Barrett (2008); Chemla and Zou (2018); Furth (2007); Pingyi (2010)). Overall, this literature displays an extremely rich circuit of (oral, manuscript and printed) communications across the socio-cultural strata of East Asian societies, plus intercultural comparisons and regional circulations that differ from the common geopolitical stances of Eurocentric historiography of science (Burke and McDermott 2015; Blair 2011; Amelung 2014; Berry 2006; Marcon 2015, 2020; McDermott 2016; Elman and Minkowski 2018).
There was, therefore, a long-standing experience in book history early on, within the study of modern science, East and West. However, this research focus only became a popular research agenda for historians of science at large, at the beginning of this century—through the more assertive and methodologically explicit contributions of scholars, such as Adrian Johns, James Secord and Jonathan Topham. The extension of foundational early modern historical wisdom, together with a fruitful cross-national breeding of European historical schools, gave rise to new approaches within the history of science, at the same time that research on the nineteenth century was gaining momentum (Frasca-Spada and Jardine 2000; Hunter 2000).
From Eamon (1985a) to James Secord (2000), historians of science would overcome the old historiographical antagonism between textual and experimental/practical knowledge (Rossi 1962; Kuhn 1975; Carlino 1999). They embraced the new enthusiasm for an integrated analysis of “material, literary and social technology” (Shapin and Schaffer 1985) to investigate the products of printing and their role in the making of scientific knowledge. Secord’s monograph analysis of the book Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation constituted a canonical example for scholarship to come. It paid equal attention to the material culture of print, socio-political debates and cultural fashion, authorship, the intellectual and practical business of publishing and, most importantly, readers. In this context, he unfolded the tools of science studies, together with those of bibliography and Victorian studies, to produce a colossal analysis of “literary replication”, that is, the multiple forms, places and people in which Vestiges was projected (and reshaped), acquiring, thus, meaning through its various circulations and readings. Furthermore, this was book history at the service of a strong historiographical thesis, characterizing the cosmological ethos of Victorian science and reconsidering the origins of evolutionary ideas (Secord 2000).
The publication in France of arguably the first modern reference work on book history in a national context, including some articles on science publishing (Martin and Chartier 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986; Eisenstein 1983; Zemon-Davis 1983; Jammes 1984; Fierro 1985; Tesnière 1985; Lecoq 1986), contributed to promote a new engagement with book research among French and multinational teams of historians of science interested in science popularization and education (Béguet 1990; Bensaude-Vincent and Rasmussen 1997; Lundgren and Bensaude-Vincent 2000). Analogously, the work of British scholars, such as William Brock and Jack Meadows (see bibliography), Jon Topham (1992) and James Secord (2000), stimulated a new international impulse for the study of science popularization through a focus on book culture. In the ensuing decades, the publication of book history reference works in Great Britain would now commonly include chapters on science publishing (Jones 1999; Johns 2002; Burnett and Jones 2008; Secord 2009; Fyfe 2009; Topham 2009; Walters 2009; Fyfe 2020). The same applies to the ongoing (so far, ten volumes) history of the book in Germany and other German reference works, which include relevant chapters on scientific and medical publishing (Jäger 2001, 2003; Schneider 2007, 2015; Estermann 2010; Fischer 2021). In contrast, for instance, the most recent history of the book in the United States of America, provides, across its five volumes, only two chapters on science, and scattered references within chapters on “learned knowledge” and education (Amory and Hall 2000; Casper et al. 2007; Gross and Kelley 2010; Kaestle and Radway 2009; Nord et al. 2009; LaFollette 2009; Lewenstein 2009; Zimmerman 2009).3
Correspondingly, history of science reference works would start to provide some space for matters of book history. In 1990, the (Leeds) Companion to the History of Modern Science provided only a few references to the role of printing and procedures of publication in its chapters on the “scientific revolution” and on “science and the public”. Steven Shapin considered then, that “there has not yet been a concerted response by historians of science to the programme of research on the culture of publishing and reading associated with the work of Robert Darnton on the Encyclopédie and Elizabeth Eisenstein on print culture and Copernicanism” (Olby et al. 1990; Shapin 1990, p. 1000). The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science (Heilbron 2003) included a good amount of entries on scientific publishing and its genres (e.g., “printing house”, “library”, “encyclopedias”, “journal”, “textbook”, “peer-review”, “institute for scientific information”). The eight-volume Cambridge History of Science proposed specific essays on print in its volumes devoted to early modern and eighteenth-century science, respectively (Johns 2006, 2003a). Reference to print culture as a major historical argument is also present across most of the chapters in both volumes, but especially in the latter (Porter 2003). However, the remaining six volumes (covering ancient, medieval, physical and mathematical sciences, social sciences, biological and earth sciences and national, transnational and global science) scarcely deal with this topic, with the exception of two chapters on science popularization (Knight 2002; Bowler 2009). Conversely, the most recent Companion to the History of Science (Lightman 2016) gives wide coverage with a special section composed of eight chapters on the main forms of science communication. In spite of the Anglo-American bias of these international reference works, they provide a pattern of the great potential for further interactions and intersections of history of science and book history in many national contexts. For instance, a recent collective showcase of research on late modern science and technology in China includes a strong focus on print culture in more than half of its chapters, with cutting-edge contributions relevant to any historian of science (Elman 2014; Amelung 2014; Shen 2014a; Tsu 2014; Mullaney 2014; Lean 2014; Fan 2014).
On one side and the other of the science/book history disciplinary divide, a number of countries have panoramic book histories, which include attention to the scientific, medical and technological, methodologically sophisticated book and journal biographies and professional histories of major publishing firms, specialized in this type of production. Examples of this are France (Mollier 1988, 2015; Fouché 1998; Tesnière 2001, 2014b; Parinet 1992, 2004; Marpeau 2002, 2010; Gourevitch and Vincent 2006; Sorel and Leblanc 2008; Simon 2011; Verdier 2013, 2017), Great Britain (Brock 1978, 1996; Brock and Meadows 1984; Frasca-Spada and Jardine 2000; Lightman 2007; Richardson 2008; Fyfe 2004, 2012; Simon 2011; Gadd et al. 2014; Secord 2000, 2015; Frost 2014; Topham 2022), Germany (Wille 1986; Schmeck 1990; Jäger 1990; Sarkowski 1992; Götze 1994; Holl 1996; Meinel 1997a; Reimer 1999; Daum 2002; Müller 2004; Estermann and Schneider 2007; Lembrecht 2007; Remmert and Schneider 2008a, 2008b, 2010; Wesolowski 2010; Rebenich 2013) and, to a certain extent, the Netherlands (Berkvens-Stevelinck et al. 1992; Daling 2006; Delft et al. 2006; Andriesse 2008; Edelman 2010; Veen 2008; Pettegree and Weduwen 2019) and China4. In countries, such as Italy (Montecchi 2001; Borelli 1998; Galuzzi et al. 1998; Govoni 2002, 2010; Mazzotti 2004; Braida 2014; Turi 1997) and Spain (Botrel 1993; Pardo Tomás 1991, 2004, 2010; Jalón 1997; García Hurtado 2002; Garza Merino 2004; Llanas 2004, 2005, 2006; García Naharro 2015, 2019; Guía Moruno 2021), the historical literature on the culture of science in print is still irregular and insufficient and it displays lack of communication and cooperation between historians of science and historians of the book. In a large cultural territory, such as Latin America, the field is still in need of a clearer direction; however, it has recently experienced a major boost in publications dealing with this subject and approach. Take, for instance, Mexico, Argentina and Brazil, three large national states with a major historical role in the field of publishing, large international publishing houses past and present, important communities of researchers in science, technology and medicine and distinct national and continental traditions in book history5. There are a number of big pictures of publishing in these countries.6 Historians noted long ago the relevance of printing, the periodical press and libraries in the making of scientific elites and the independent Latin American Republics,7 and there is a new wave of scholarly work promoting a convergence of interests between the history of science and the history of the book (Dorta 2019; Valdez Garza 2014, 2016; Minor García 2016; Johns 2016; Ramírez Martín and Ramírez Ortega 2020; Gutiérrez-Maya et al. 2020; Vega y Ortega Baez 2018, 2020; Azuela 2018; Azuela and Serrano Juárez 2021; Constantino 2018; Constantino Ortiz and Morales Sarabia 2021; Hernández Socha 2018, 2020; Vergara 2020; Weltman 2002; Ferreira 2004; Venancio 2013; Sá and Silva 2010; Rolim and Sá 2013; Sávio 2013; Vessuri 1987, 1989; Labarca 2020). So far, the results are uneven: on the one hand, a number of works, such as Vessuri (1989), Minor García (2016), Atique (2018) and Hernández Socha (2018, 2020), contribute with major historical claims on the production and communication of knowledge through investigations on the actual processes of translation, journal publication and circulation and the making of hegemonic cultures in science across the Americas. Others, such as Ferreira (2004), Constantino (2018), Sá and Silva (2010) and Rolim and Sá (2013), mobilize the processes of periodical publishing to dissect the political business of scientific knowledge in national and international perspective. On the other hand, other works are still too bibliographically descriptive and historiographically ineffective, in spite of having the merit of promoting interdisciplinarity (Martínez Baracs (2014); Valdez Garza (2014, 2016); Ramírez Martín and Ramírez Ortega (2020); Gutiérrez-Maya et al. (2020); Vega y Ortega Baez (2018, 2020); Weltman (2002); Sávio (2013); Labarca (2020)).
So far, this review has followed the logic of (historical and historiographical) national blocks, which—to be fair—still characterize both the history of science and book history. However, an occasional number of works have overcome the nationalistic exceptionalism of normal history, by engaging in several ways with scientific publishing in international and comparative perspectives or by investigating translation practices (e.g., MacLeod 1980; Vessuri 1989; Reardon-Anderson 1991; Blondel-Mégrelis 2000; Howsam 2000; Barrow-Green 2002; Lützen 2002; Despeaux 2002; Lloyd and Sivin 2002; Roldán Vera 2003; Hu 2005; Edelman 1994, 2010; Nappi 2009; Connor 2009; Sá and Silva 2010; Simon 2010, 2011; Wulf 2013; Elshakry 2014; Shen 2014b; Minor García 2016; El Shakry 2017).
The study of the scientific journal has been a major impulse for the analysis of publishing within the history of science. Attention to the scientific journal stemmed from the bookseller and library professional practice and the work of scientific academies, entrepreneurial scientists and journalism researchers, in the form of organizational schemes and specialized catalogues on periodical and scientific literature. This practice was not merely descriptive but provided some major analytical contributions in the first half of the 20th century, even before the advent of information theory and scientometrics.8 The earliest contributions from historians of science to the study of journals focused on some of the foundational cases in journal production; they established the basic historical facts of their foundation and development and explored their contents and subject matter (Hollmann 1937; Harff 1941; Neave 1950, 1951a, 1951b, 1951c, 1951d, 1952; Geus 1971; Engelhardt 1974; Wimmel and Geus 1981). They also suggested a wide range of research lines, such as their role as communication tools for scientific academies and networks, their importance for scientific advance and disciplinary specialization, the practices of editorship and readership, the relevance of commercial interests and the profile of their authors, subscribers and readers (Sergescu 1936; Hollmann 1937; Harff 1941; Roller 1946; Lilley 1948; McKie 1957; Smeaton 1957; Hall 1965, 1975; Phillips 1966; Court 1972; McClellan 1979).
By the early 1990s, several decades of research on scientific and medical periodicals converged in major big pictures and case studies (Meadows 1980; Brock and Meadows 1984; Jungnickel and McCormmach 1986; Bynum et al. 1992; Meinel 1993, 1997a; Crosland 1994; Ausejo and Hormigón 1993; CHST-Nantes 1994; Reiber 1999; Johns 2000; McClellan 2003; Peiffer et al. 2013). Two main perspectives prevailed: on the one hand, the journal as a controlling agent of the making of disciplinary knowledge; on the other, the periodical as a driving agent in the making of scientific knowledge through popularization.
In his work on the making of physics as a discipline in Germany, Rudolf Stichweh (1984, 2003) presented specialized journals as a major agent in the making of scientific disciplines. At first, science journals covered a wide range of subjects; they were addressed to an elite of science practitioners in regional and international contexts and often had short lives as publication ventures. Subsequently, after the late 18th century, a range of more specialized journals appeared in France, Germany and Britain, which persisted for longer periods and were fed by a sustained effort of publication and reading, which continuously reshaped the boundaries of disciplinary knowledge. Furthermore, journal publishing increasingly became a fundamental normative practice in the production process of science and the form of the scientific article was progressively defined by particular cultural protocols. Journal science became, thus, a major agent in the production of scientific disciplines as social systems and overall in the making of scientific knowledge (Tobies 1986, 1987; Ausejo and Hormigón 1993; Gierl 1997; Bazerman 1998; Barrow-Green 2002; Remmert and Schneider 2010; Lembrecht 2007; Verdier 2009; Gerini and Verdier 2014; Peiffer et al. 2018).
In parallel, there was an emerging interest in periodicals and popularization, pioneered by scholars, such as Susan Sheets-Pyenson (1981a, 1981b, 1981c, 1985). Research on science popularization received a major international impulse since the 1990s, which included a major focus on journals. This movement promoted novel online tools for the study of science in periodicals, such as the Science in the Nineteenth-Century Periodical Index developed at the University of Leeds (Cantor et al. 2005) and research on science periodicals across Europe (Topham 1992, 2000a; Bensaude-Vincent and Rasmussen 1997; Barton 1998; Secord 2000; Matos 2000; Nunes 2001; Govoni 2002; Daum 2002; Cantor and Shuttleworth 2004; Reis 2005, 2007; Perdiguero Enrique and Martínez-Vidal 2009; Martínez Vidal and Zarzoso 2002; Papanelopoulou and Kjærgaard 2009; Schirrmacher 2012; Zilhão 2014, 2021; Dahn 2019) and Latin America (Mendoza and Busala 2002; Venancio 2013; Vergara 2020; Azuela Bernal and Vega Ortega 2015; Vega y Ortega Baez 2020; Becerra and Saldivia 2010; Ramírez 2019; Ramírez-Errázuriz and Leyton-Alvarado 2020; Valderrama and Ramírez Errázuriz 2020). Results in this field are still irregular: A number of scholars have taken the challenge of analyzing, in depth, the process of journal publication as a fundamental practice in the making of scientific knowledge, through the conceptual and methodological tools of the study of the material culture of writing, printing, bookselling and reading. Others still take the science periodical as just an attractive medium in which to check the course of scientific culture9. Concurrently, historians of Chinese science have produced a consistent corpus of research around popular science, technology and medicine encyclopedias and other types of instructional textbooks, with a much wider temporal scope, connecting contemporary science with writing and bookselling traditions of several thousand years and delivering profound insights on the epistemological practice of scientific knowledge compilation (Rawski 1979; Lean 2014; Elman 2000, 2005; Bretelle-Establet and Chemla 2007; Furth 1999, 2007; Schneider 2003; Nappi 2009; Bréard 2010; Jami 2012; Burke and McDermott 2015; Marcon 2015; Bretelle-Establet 2018; Pacey and Bray 2021).10
The role given to communication and media in the sociological theories of scholars, such as Ludwik Fleck (1935), Robert Merton (1938, 1949), Jürgen Habermas (1962) and Niklas Luhmann (1975), also fed the configuration of new approaches to journals from the field of history of science and science studies.11 Merton (1938) saw journals as “indices of interest in the sciences” and claimed their centrality in the “reward system of science”. Putting together his research experience on mass communication and the new work of “heralds of scientometrics”, such as Derek de Solla Price (1963), and sociologists of science, such as Harriet Zuckerman (1967), a sociological analysis of the practices of journal article refereeing and their role in the making of scientific knowledge started to develop (Zuckerman and Merton 1971). This furthered quantitative approaches in history of science with the use of research citation measurements for historical cases of journal and science publication in general (Kronick 1962, 1991; Garfield 1964; Ziman 1969; Court 1972; Eccarius 1976; Houghton 1975; López Piñero 1979; Meinel 1993). The increasingly hegemonic role of the measurement of science journal publication in the neoliberal business of scientific knowledge has, since then, been a major focus of attention for historians and sociologists of science alike (Verdoorn 1948; Zuckerman and Merton 1971; Merton and Storer 1973; Zuckerman 1977; Gilbert 1977; Schwartzman 1984; Vessuri 1989; Gibbs 1995; Westwick 2003; Martín Frechilla et al. 2005). More recent work on the scientific journal has especially sought to illuminate the present framework of journal science through exemplary historical cases and a profound analysis of practices, such as editorship and peer review, shaping the political economy of the journal and its role in the system of science (LaFollette 1992; Biagioli 2002; Remmert and Schneider 2008b; Tesnière 2014b, 2021; Shen 2014a; Fyfe et al. 2015; Clarke 2015; Baldwin 2015; Shuttleworth and Charnley 2016; Lalli 2016; Fyfe et al. 2017; Csiszar 2018; Gielas and Fyfe 2020; Wale 2022).
The scientific article has been particularly scrutinized by scholars interested in the analysis of writing as the ultimate tool in the making of scientific knowledge (Bazerman 1998; Gross et al. 2002). Early on, scientists, such as Arber (1954) and Medawar (1963), and historians of science, such as Holmes (1987), warned us of the fundamental difference between scientific writing and scientific discovery. The commonly accepted difference between “literature” and “scientific literature” or between “fiction” and “science” was not as clear as expected. Scientific writing involved a good amount of creativity and was far from describing accurately the research path followed by the scientist in a quest for truth. Contemporarily, Greg Myers (1990) singled out the elaborate rhetorical practices of scientists by comparing the writing strategies of biologists in two different communication genres, the scientific journal paper and the grant application. Analogously, the analysis of the practices of writing and filing patents revealed the fundamental role that scientific and technological writing had in promoting or restraining invention and the tight relationship between writing, publishing, creativity and the commercial economy of science and technology (Bazerman 1999; Pettitt 2004; Biagioli 2006; Johns 2003b; Biagioli and Galison 2003). Starting with an interest on the rhetoric of science texts promoted by science studies (Gross 2006; Gilbert 1976; Latour and Fabbri 1977; Knorr and Knorr 1978; Dear 1991), together with a philological tradition still prevailing in the study of ancient and early modern science (Lloyd and Sivin (2002); Bretelle-Establet and Schmitt (2018)), the field has developed progressively towards a social and material history of science writing practices, through contributions from a diverse range of disciplines (Bazerman 1983; Elsky 1989; Topham 2000b; Gitelman 2000; Warwick 2003; Blair 2004, 2010; Daston 2004; Cahn 2004; Olson 1994, 2004; Kruse 2006; Furth 2007; Gardey 2008; Pardo Tomás 2010; Simon 2011; Hess and Mendelsohn 2013; Waquet 2003, 2015; Ogborn 2007; Knight 2009; Tsu 2014; Mullaney 2014; Watts 2015; Dietz 2016; Leong 2019; Husson and Kremer 2016; Oosterhoff 2018).
Materiality, readings, print technique and knowledge management are currently fundamental drivers for a history of scientific publishing. Their sociologies and anthropologies have helped historians of science deepen their understanding. Nonetheless, they connect with real sources, archives and historical practices, which postmodern scholars will hardly graze (Topham 2000a; Barad 2003; Lenoir 1998). The field has been especially successful through those works that cut across disciplines, time periods and geopolitical contexts, both in their subject matter and conceptualization. Its timeliness convenes recurrently new scholars to discuss its captivating allure in the field of scholarly publication (Dietz 2022; Leong et al. 2020; Jovanovic et al. 2018; Haddad 2015; Bustamante 2015; Hochadel et al. 2016; Apple et al. 2012). In his classic Victorian Sensation, James Secord proclaimed having produced “the most comprehensive analysis of the reading of any book other than the Bible ever undertaken”. Overstated or not, it persuasively expresses why the history of scientific publishing should be of interest to any academic or non-academic reader.

Funding

This research was funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación-Agencia Estatal de Investigación, grant numbers RYC-2017–21763 and PID2019–104897GA-I00. I am grateful to the three anonymous reviewers of this paper for their comments and suggestions and to Mila Marinkovic as Managing Editor.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Notes

1
On the relative impact of early printing, see also Neddermeyer (1998).
2
The (Spanish) Black Legend or Leyenda Negra has been defined as a political campaign of discredit fueled since the 16th century by the Spanish Empire rival powers. It discredited Spanish cultural and scientific contributions by stressing the cruelty of the Spanish conquest of the American indigenous nations, considering it essential to Spanish and Catholic nature and comparatively minimizing the colonizing actions of other (Protestant) European nations. See Campbell (2003); Pardo Tomás (1991); Navarro Brotóns and Eamon (2007).
3
The history of science literature dealing with science publishing in the USA does not seem to be abundant either (see, for instance, Karpinski 1940; Burdick 2009; Servos 1982; Baatz 1991; Lalli 2014, 2016). There are also few examples of histories of US publishing firms dealing with science (see, for instance, Wolfe 1981). The major science book historians working in the USA and Canada have focused their work especially on British and European cases.
4
The literature on publishing and science, technology and medicine in China is abundant, but arguably still insufficient in relation to the historical richness of this subject for the case of China and East Asia in general. The subject is commonly addressed, both in the history of science and book history literature. See Tsien (1962, 1985); Rawski (1979); Twitchett (1983); Reardon-Anderson (1991); Chemla et al. (2001); Chia (2002); Elman (2005, 2015), Bretelle-Establet and Chemla (2007); Brokaw (2007); Barrett (2008); Brokaw and Reed (2010); Chia and De Weerdt (2011); Jami (2012); Tsu and Elman (2014); Shen (2014b); Trambailo (2014); McDermott and Burke (2015); McDermott (2006, 2016); Chemla (2020); Bretelle-Establet (2022).
5
While, in the following, I focus—for reasons of space—on those three major national cases, I also make brief reference to other cases, such as Colombia, Chile and Peru.
6
7
See Prelat (1960); Saladino García (1996); Wegner (2004); Barbosa (2010); Nieto Olarte (2007); Silva (1988, 2002), Roldán Vera (2003); Alzate Echeverri (2005); Guibovich Pérez (2002); Labarca (2020). Analogously, for science publishing during the Enlightenment in France, Germany, Scotland, England and Portugal, see Ehrard and Roger (1965); Darnton (1979); Vittu (2002); Reiber (1999); Stöltzner (2008); Sher (2006); Spary (2020); Lisboa (1991); and across the Republic of Letters: Broman (2013).
8
See Ostwald (1919); Sparks (1919); Kirchner (1928, 1931, 1958, 1962); Morgan (1929); Garrison (1934); Barnes (1936); Hollmann (1937); Lefanu (1937a, 1937b, 1938); Bernal (1939); Harff (1941); Roller (1946); Verdoorn (1948); Kronick (1962, 1991); Hall (1965, 1975); Ziman (1969); Geus (1971); Engelhardt (1974); Wimmel and Geus (1981); Houghton (1975); Manzer (1977). An overview of some of this literature can be found in Meinel (1997b); Behrends (1995); Hapke (1997, 2005). In contrast to the analytical quality of bibliographical work such as that of Kirchner (1928, 1931, 1958, 1962); Kronick (1962, 1991), stands for instance the laconism of the Royal Society’s Catalogue of Scientific Papers introductory pages (which barely present, contextualize or analyze the list of compiled papers). On its production, see Csiszar (2018), pp. 232–39.
9
Of course, the study of “science periodicals” and “science in the periodical” also owes to the history of newspapers and journalism and to the central role that periodicals and newspapers have played as sources for history at large. This is a scholarly field I have scarcely covered in this article. See, for instance Kalifa et al. (2011); Bellanger (1969); Birkner (2012); Conboy (2020).
10
The study of science’s encyclopedic knowledge in Europe has, of course, gravitated towards a mid-18th century foundational moment. It has, nonetheless, had a major methodological role in the development of the history of scientific publishing. See, for instance, Darnton (1979); Yeo (2001, 2007); Falconer (2021).
11
Communication has been periodically hailed as a driving concept for the history of science. See, for instance, Hall (1965, 1975); Ziman (1969); Meadows (1974); Meinel (1993); Dooley (1995); Lux and Cook (1998); Secord (2004).

References

  1. Alzate Echeverri, Adriana. 2005. Los manuales de salud en la Nueva Granada (1760–1810) El remedio al pie de la letra? Fronteras de la Historia 10: 209–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Amelung, Iwo. 2014. Historiography of Science and Technology in China: The First Phase. In Science and Technology in Modern China, 1880s–1940s. Edited by Jing Tsu and Benjamin A. Elman. Leiden: Brill, pp. 39–66. [Google Scholar]
  3. Amory, Hugh, and David D. Hall, eds. 2000. The Colonial Book in the Atlantic World. In A History of the Book in America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, vol. I. [Google Scholar]
  4. Andriesse, Cornelis D. 2008. Dutch Messengers: A History of Science Publishing, 1930–1980. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  5. Apple, Rima D., Gregory J. Downey, and Stephen L. Vaughn, eds. 2012. Science in Print: Essays on the History of Science and the Culture of Print. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Arber, Agnes. 1954. The biologist and the written word. In The Mind and the Eye: A Study of the Biologist’s Standpoint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45–59. [Google Scholar]
  7. Arrizabalaga, Jon. 2002. El libro científico en la imprenta castellana (1485–1520). In Historia de la ciencia y de la técnica en la Corona de Castilla. Edited by Luis García Ballester. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, Consejería de Educación y Cultura, vol. 2, pp. 619–49. [Google Scholar]
  8. Atique, Fernando. 2018. Uma trama engenhosa: A montagem do Congresso Internacional de Engenharia, em 1922, e as relações diplomáticas entre o Brasil e o grupo McGraw-Hill. Varia Historia 34: 477–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ausejo, Elena, and Mariano Hormigón, eds. 1993. Messengers of Mathematics: European Mathematical Journals (1800–1946). Madrid: Siglo XXI. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ayala Ochoa, Camilo. 2016. La Cultura Editorial Universitaria. México: Universidad Autónoma de México. [Google Scholar]
  11. Azuela Bernal, Luz Fernanda, and Rodrigo A. Vega Ortega. 2015. Ciencia y público en la Ciudad de México en la primera mitad del siglo XIX. Asclepio 67: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Azuela, Luz F. 2018. La ciencia en la esfera pública mexicana (1821–1864). Saberes. Revista de Historia de las Ciencias y las Humanidades 1: 30–56. [Google Scholar]
  13. Azuela, Luz Fernanda, and José D. Serrano Juárez. 2021. El proceso de integración de México en las redes científicas internacionales y el afianzamiento de sus normas y valores en la Sociedad Científica “Antonio Alzate” (1884–1912). Estudios de Historia Moderna y Contemporánea de México 61: 133–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Baatz, Simon. 1991. Squinting at Silliman: Scientific Periodicals in the Early American Republic, 1810–1833. Isis 82: 223–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Baldwin, Melinda. 2015. Making Nature: The History of a Scientific Journal. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Barad, Karen. 2003. Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter. Signs 28: 801–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Barbosa, Marialva. 2010. História Cultural da Imprensa: Brasil, 1800–1900. Rio de Janeiro: Mauad. [Google Scholar]
  18. Barnes, Sherman B. 1936. The Editing of Early Learned Journals. Osiris 1: 155–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Barrera-Osorio, Antonio. 2006. Experiencing Nature: The Spanish American Empire and the Early Scientific Revolution. Austin: University of Texas Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Barrett, Timothy Hugh. 2008. The Woman Who Discovered Printing. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Barrow-Green, June. 2002. Gösta Mittag-Leffler and the Foundation and Administration of Acta Mathematica. In Mathematics Unbound: The Evolution of an International Mathematical Research Community, 1800–1945. Edited by Karen H. Parshall and Adrian C. Rice. Providence: American Mathematical Society-London Mathematical Society, pp. 139–64. [Google Scholar]
  22. Barton, Ruth. 1998. Just before Nature: The purposes of science and the purposes of popularization in some English popular science journals of the 1860s. Annals of Science 55: 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bazerman, Charles. 1983. Scientific Writing as a Social Act. In New Essays in Technical Writing and Communication. Edited by Paul V. Anderson, John R. Brockman and Carolyn R. Miller. Farmingdale: Baywood, pp. 154–84. [Google Scholar]
  24. Bazerman, Charles. 1998. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bazerman, Charles. 1999. The Languages of Edison’s Light. Cambridge: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Becerra, Silvia, and Zenobio Saldivia. 2010. El Mercurio de Valparaíso su rol de Difusión de la Ciencia y Tecnología en el Chile Decimonónico. Santiago de Chile: Bravo y Allende. [Google Scholar]
  27. Béguet, Bruno. 1990. La Science Pour Tous: Sur la Vulgarisation Scientifique en France de 1850 à 1914. Paris: CNAM. [Google Scholar]
  28. Behrends, Elke. 1995. Technisch-Wissenschaftliche Dokumentation in Deutschland von 1900 bis 1945: Unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung des Verhältnisses von Bibliothek und Dokumentation. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bellanger, Claude, ed. 1969. Histoire Générale de la Presse Française. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, [comprising 5 vols. until 1976]. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette, and Anne Rasmussen, eds. 1997. La Science Populaire dans la Presse et l’édition: XIXe et XXe Siècles. Paris: CNRS. [Google Scholar]
  31. Berkvens-Stevelinck, Christiane, Hans Bots, Paul G. Hoftijzer, and Otto S. Lankhorst, eds. 1992. Le Magasin de l’Univers. The Dutch Republic as the Centre of the European Book Trade. Leiden: E. J. Brill. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bernal, John D. 1939. The Social Function of Science. London: George Routledge & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  33. Berry, Mary E. 2006. Japan in Print: Information and Nation in the Early Modern Period. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Biagioli, Mario, and Peter Galison, eds. 2003. Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  35. Biagioli, Mario. 2002. From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review. Emergences 12: 11–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Biagioli, Mario. 2006. Patent Republic: Representing Inventions, Constructing Rights and Authors. Social Research 73: 1129–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Birkner, Thomas. 2012. Das Selbstgespräch der Zeit. Die Geschichte des Journalismus in Deutschland 1605–1914. Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  38. Blair, Ann M. 2010. Too Much To Know: Managing Scholarly Information before the Modern Age. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Blair, Ann. 2004. Note taking as an art of transmission. Critical Inquiry 31: 85–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Blair, Ann. 2011. Afterword: Rethinking Western Printing with Chinese Comparisons. In Knowledge and Text Production in an Age of Print: China, 900–1400. Edited by Lucille Chia and Hilde De Weerdt. Leiden: Brill, pp. 349–60. [Google Scholar]
  41. Blair, Anne, Paul Duiguid, Anja-Silvia Goeing, and Anthony Grafton. 2021. Information: A Historical Companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Blondel-Mégrelis, Marika. 2000. Berzelius’s Textbook: In Translation and Multiple Editions, as Seen Through His Correspondence. In Communicating Chemistry: Textbooks and their Audiences, 1789–1939. Edited by Anders Lundgren and Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent. Canton: Science History Publications, pp. 255–72. [Google Scholar]
  43. Borelli, Antonio. 1998. Editoria scientifica e professione medica nel secondo Settecento. In Editoria e Cultura a Napoli nel XVIII Secolo. Edited by Anna Maria Rao. Napoli: Liguori, pp. 737–38. [Google Scholar]
  44. Botrel, Jean-François. 1993. Libros, Prensa y Lectura en la España del siglo XIX. Madrid: Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bowler, Peter J. 2009. Popular Science. In The Cambridge History of Science. Edited by Peter Bowler and John V. Pickstone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 6, pp. 622–33. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bragança, Aníbal, and Márcia Galison, eds. 2011. Impresso no Brasil: Dois séculos de livros brasileiros. São Paulo: Editora Unesp. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Biblioteca Nacional. [Google Scholar]
  47. Braida, Lodovica. 2014. L’histoire du livre en Italie: Entre histoire de la bibliographie, histoire sociale et histoire de la culture écrite. Histoire et Civilisation du Livre 9: 5–27. [Google Scholar]
  48. Bréard, Andrea. 2010. Knowledge and Practice of Mathematics in Late Ming Daily life Encyclopedias. In Looking at it from Asia: The Processes that Shaped the Sources of History of Science. Edited by Florence Bretelle-Establet. Cham: Springer, pp. 305–29. [Google Scholar]
  49. Bretelle-Establet, Florence, and Karine Chemla, eds. 2007. Qu’était-ce Qu’écrire une Encyclopédie en Chine? Extrême-Orient, Extrême-Occident hors-Série. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bretelle-Establet, Florence, and Stéphane Schmitt, eds. 2018. Pieces and Parts in Scientific Texts. Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  51. Bretelle-Establet, Florence. 2015. The Issue of Textual Genres in the Medical Literature Produced in Late Imperial China. In Texts, Textual Acts and the History of Science. Edited by Karine Chemla and Jacques Virbel. Cham: Springer, pp. 87–142. [Google Scholar]
  52. Bretelle-Establet, Florence. 2018. Writing with and from Parts of the Discourses of Others in Chinese Medical Texts: Where Syntax and Layout Matter. In Pieces and Parts in Scientific Texts. Edited by Florence Bretelle-Establet and Stéphane Schmitt. Cham: Springer, pp. 223–67. [Google Scholar]
  53. Bretelle-Establet, Florence. 2022. Biography of the Medical Book in Late Imperial China: A View from the Southern Margins of the Qing Empire. East Asian Science, Technology and Medicine 54: 42–116. [Google Scholar]
  54. Brock, William H. 1978. The society for the perpetuation of Gmelin: The Cavendish Society, 1846–1872. Annals of Science 35: 599–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Brock, William H. 1996. Science for All: Studies in the History of Victorian Science and Education. Aldershot: Variorum. [Google Scholar]
  56. Brock, William H., and Arthur J. Meadows. 1984. The Lamp of Learning: Taylor & Francis and the Development of Science Publishing. London: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]
  57. Brokaw, Cynthia, and Christopher A. Reed, eds. 2010. From Woodblocks to the Internet: Chinese Publishing and Print Culture in Transition, circa 1800 to 2008. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  58. Brokaw, Cynthia J. 2007. Commerce in Culture: The Sibao Book Trade in the Qing and Republican Periods. Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center. [Google Scholar]
  59. Brokaw, Cynthia J., and Kai-wing Chow, eds. 2005. Printing and Book Culture in Late Imperial China. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  60. Broman, Thomas. 2013. Criticism and the Circulation of News: The Scholarly Press in the Late Seventeenth Century. History of Science 51: 125–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Brush, Stephen G. 2000. Thomas Kuhn as a Historian of Science. Science & Education 9: 39–58. [Google Scholar]
  62. Burdick, Bruce S. 2009. Mathematical Works Printed in the Americas, 1554–1700. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]
  63. Burke, Peter, and Joseph McDermott. 2015. The Proliferation of Reference Books, 1450–1850. In The Book Worlds of East Asia and Europe, 1450–1850: Connections and Comparisons. Edited by Joseph P. McDermott and Peter Burke. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 237–82. [Google Scholar]
  64. Burnett, Charles, and Peter M. Jones. 2008. Scientific and medical writings. In The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain. Edited by Nigel Morgan and Rodney M. Thomson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 2, pp. 446–62. [Google Scholar]
  65. Bustamante, Martha C., ed. 2015. Oralités et documents scientifiques écrits: Nouvelles perspectives en histoire des sciences. Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences 65: 503–644. [Google Scholar]
  66. Bynum, William F., Stephen Lock, and Roy Porter, eds. 1992. Medical Journals and Medical Knowledge: Historical Essays. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  67. Cahn, Michael. 2004. Opera Omnia: The Production of Cultural Authority. In History of Science, History of Text. Edited by Karine Chemla. Cham: Springer, pp. 81–94. [Google Scholar]
  68. Calvo, Hortensia. 2003. The Politics of Print: The Historiography of the Book in Early Spanish America. Book History 6: 277–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Campbell, Gordon, ed. 2003. The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  70. Cañizares-Esguerra, Jorge. 2001. How to Write the History of the New World: Histories, Epistemologies and Identities in the Eighteenth-Century Atlantic World. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  71. Cañizares-Esguerra, Jorge. 2006a. Puritan Conquistadors. Iberianizing the Atlantic, 1550–1700. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  72. Cañizares-Esguerra, Jorge. 2006b. Nature, Empire and Nation: Explorations of the History of Science in the Iberian World. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  73. Cantor, Geoffrey, and Sally Shuttleworth, eds. 2004. Science Serialized: Representations of the Sciences in Nineteenth-Century Periodicals. Cambridge: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  74. Cantor, Geoffrey, Sally Shuttleworth, Gowan Dawson, Richard Noakes, and Jonathan R. Topham. 2005. Science in the Nineteenth-Century Periodical. University of Leeds-University of Sheffield-University of Leicester-University of Oxford. Available online: https://www.sciper.org/ (accessed on 1 July 22).
  75. Carlino, Andrea. 1999. Books of the Body: Anatomical Ritual and Renaissance Learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  76. Casper, Scott E., Jeffrey D. Groves, and Sephen W. Nissenbaum, eds. 2007. The Industrial Book, 1840-1880. In A History of the Book in America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, vol. III. [Google Scholar]
  77. Castañeda, Carmen. 2002. Del Autor al Lector. I. Historia del Libro en México. II. Historia del libro. México D. F.: CIESAS. [Google Scholar]
  78. Chartier, Roger. 1984. Culture as Appropriation: Popular Cultural Uses in Early Modern France. In Understanding Popular Culture: Europe from the Middle Ages to the Nineteenth Century. Edited by Steven L. Kaplan. Berlin: Mouton Publishers, pp. 229–53. [Google Scholar]
  79. Chemla, Karine, and Dahai Zou. 2018. Parts in Chinese Mathematical Texts. Interpreting the Chapter Form of The Nine Chapters on Mathematical Procedures. In Pieces and Parts in Scientific Texts. Edited by Florence Bretelle-Establet and Stéphane Schmitt. Cham: Springer, pp. 91–133. [Google Scholar]
  80. Chemla, Karine, Francesca Bray, Daiwie Fu, Yi-Long Huang, and Georges Métailié, eds. 2001. La scienza in Cina. In Storia della Scienza. Sandro Petruccioli, dir. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, vol. 2, pp. 5–608. [Google Scholar]
  81. Chemla, Karine. 2020. Reading instructions of the past, classifying them and reclassifying them: Commentaries on the canon The Nine Chapters on Mathematical Procedures from the third to the thirteenth centuries. BJHS Themes 5: 15–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cherniack, Susan. 1994. Book Culture and Textual Transmission in Sung China. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 54: 5–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chia, Lucille, and Hilde De Weerdt, eds. 2011. Knowledge and Text Production in an Age of Print: China, 900–1400. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  84. Chia, Lucille. 2002. Printing for Profit: The Commercial Publishers of Jianyang, Fujian (11th–17th Centuries). Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center. [Google Scholar]
  85. Chow, Kai-wing. 2004. Publishing, Culture and Power in Early Modern China. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  86. CHST-Nantes. 1994. Regards sur la science: Le journal scientifique. In Sciences et Techniques en Perspective 28. Nantes: Centre d’Histoire des Sciences et des Techniques. [Google Scholar]
  87. Clarke, Imogen. 2015. The Gatekeepers of Modern Physics: Periodicals and Peer Review in 1920s Britain. Isis 106: 70–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Cobo Borda, Juan G., ed. 2000. Historia de las Empresas Editoriales de América Latina. Siglo XX. Bogotá: CERLALC. [Google Scholar]
  89. Conboy, Martin. 2020. Journalism History. In The Handbook of Journalism Studies. Edited by Karin Wahl-Jorgensen and Thomas Hanitzsch. New York: Routledge, pp. 21–37. [Google Scholar]
  90. Connor, Jennifer T. 2009. Stalwart Giants: Medical Cosmopolitanism, Canadian Authorship and American Publishers. Book History 12: 209–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Constantino Ortiz, María E., and Angélica Morales Sarabia. 2021. Dominio, saber, mercancías. Casimiro Gómez Ortega y el proyecto editorial para la ilustración de la flora americana. Historia 396: 143–74. [Google Scholar]
  92. Constantino, María E. 2018. Entre palabras y objetos. La prensa periódica como instrumento de coleccionismo de naturaleza en Nueva España, siglo XVIII. Inclusiones 5: 13–30. [Google Scholar]
  93. Court, Susan. 1972. The Annales de Chimie, 1789–1815. Ambix 19: 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Crosland, Maurice P. 1994. In the Shadow of Lavoisier: The Annales de Chimie and the Establishment of a New Science. Chalfont St. Giles: British Society for the History of Science. [Google Scholar]
  95. Csiszar, Alex. 2018. The Scientific Journal: Authorship and the Politics of Knowledge in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  96. Dahn, Ryan. 2019. Big Science, Nazified? Pascual Jordan, Adolf Meyer-Abich and the Abortive Scientific Journal Physis. Isis 110: 68–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Daling, Dorien. 2006. The Encyclopaedia as pioneer of the journal. The early years of Elsevier’s Scientific Publishing Company, 1936–1956. In New Perspectives in Book History: Contributions from the Low Countries. Edited by Marieke van Delft, Frank de Glas and Jeroen Salman. Zutphen: Walburg Press, pp. 31–48. [Google Scholar]
  98. Darnton, Robert. 1979. The Business of Enlightenment: A Publishing History of the Encyclopédie, 1775–1800. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  99. Daston, Lorraine. 2004. Taking notes. Isis 95: 443–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Daum, Andreas. 2002. Wissenschaftspopularisierung im 19. Jahrhundert: Bürgerliche Kultur, Naturwissenschaftliche Bildung und Die Deutsche Öffentlichkeit, 1848–1914, 2nd ed. München: Oldenbourg. [Google Scholar]
  101. Dear, Peter, ed. 1991. The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Google Scholar]
  102. Delft, Marieke van, Frank de Glas, and Jeroen Salman, eds. 2006. New Perspectives in Book History: Contributions from the Low Countries. Zutphen: Walburg Press. [Google Scholar]
  103. Despeaux, Sloan E. 2002. International Mathematical Contributions to British Scientific Journals, 1800–1900. In Mathematics Unbound: The Evolution of an International Mathematical Research Community, 1800–1945. Edited by Karen H. Parshall and Adrian C. Rice. Providence: American Mathematical Society-London Mathematical Society, pp. 61–88. [Google Scholar]
  104. Devlin, William J., and Alisa Bokulich, eds. 2012. Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions–50 Years On. Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  105. Diego, José Luis de. 2006. Editores y políticas editoriales en Argentina, 1880–2000. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica. [Google Scholar]
  106. Dietz, Bettina, ed. 2016. Translating and Translations in the History of Science. Annals of Science 73: 117–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Dietz, Bettina, ed. 2022. Cultures of Scientific Publishing. History of Science 60: 155–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Dooley, Brendan. 1995. The Communications Revolution in Italian Science. History of Science 33: 469–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Dorta, Ayelèn. 2019. Circuitos de lectura públicos para los hombres de ciencia: Génesis de la Biblioteca Pública de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (La Plata). Telar 23: 171–90. [Google Scholar]
  110. Drake, Stillman. 1970. Early Science and the Printed Book: The Spread of Science beyond the Universities. Renaissance and Reformation 6: 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Dutra, Eliana Regina de Freitas, and Jean-Yves Mollier. 2006. Política, Nação e Edição o lugar dos Impressos na Construção da Vida Política: Brasil, Europa e Américas nos Séculos XVIII-XX. São Paulo: Anna Blume. [Google Scholar]
  112. Eamon, William. 1984. Arcana disclosed: The advent of printing, the books of secrets tradition and the development of experimental science in the 16th century. History of Science 22: 111–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Eamon, William. 1985a. Science and Popular Culture in Sixteenth Century Italy: The “Professors of Secrets” and their Books. Sixteenth Century Journal 16: 471–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Eamon, William. 1985b. From the secrets of nature to public knowledge: The origins of the concept of openness in science. Minerva 23: 321–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Eamon, William. 1994. Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  116. Eccarius, Wolfgang. 1976. August Leopold Crelle als Herausgeber wissenschaftlicher Fachzeitschriften. Annals of Science 33: 229–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Edelman, Hendrik. 1994. Precursor to the serials crisis. Conflict and resolution in German science publishing in the 1930s. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 25: 171–78. [Google Scholar]
  118. Edelman, Hendrik. 2010. International Publishing in the Netherlands, 1933–1945: German Exile, Scholarly Expansion, War-Time Clandestinity. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  119. Ehrard, Jean, and Jacques Roger. 1965. Deux périodiques francais du 18e siecle: Le Journal des Savants et les Mémoires de Trévoux. Essais d’une étude quantitative. In Livre et Société dans la France du XVIIIe Siècle. Edited by Geneviève Bollème, Jean Ehrard, François Furet and Daniel Roche. Paris: Mouton, pp. 33–59. [Google Scholar]
  120. Eisenstein, Elizabeth. 1979. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  121. Eisenstein, Elizabeth. 1983. Le livre et la culture savante. In Histoire de L’édition Française. Edited by Henri-Jean Martin and Roger Chartier. Paris: Promodis, vol. 1, pp. 563–83. [Google Scholar]
  122. El Shakry, Omnia. 2017. The Arabic Freud: Psychoanalysis and Islam in Modern Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  123. Elman, Benjamin A. 2000. A Cultural History of Civil Examinations in Late Imperial China. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  124. Elman, Benjamin A. 2005. On Their Own Terms: Science in China 1550–1900. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  125. Elman, Benjamin A. 2007. China and the World History of Science, 1450–1770. Education about Asia 12: 40–44. [Google Scholar]
  126. Elman, Benjamin A. 2014. Toward a History of Modern Science in Republican China. In Science and Technology in Modern China, 1880s–1940s. Edited by Jing Tsu and Benjamin A. Elman. Leiden: Brill, pp. 15–38. [Google Scholar]
  127. Elman, Benjamin A. 2017. A Jointly Regional-Global Approach to Rethinking Early Modern East Asian History. In The ‘Global’ and the ‘Local’ in Early Modern and Modern East Asia. Edited by Benjamin A. Elman and Chao-Hui Jenny Liu. Leiden: Brill, pp. 66–78. [Google Scholar]
  128. Elman, Benjamin A., ed. 2015. Antiquarianism, Language and Medical Philology: From Early Modern to Modern Sino-Japanese Medical Discourses. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  129. Elman, Benjamin, and Christoper Minkowski. 2018. Big Science: Classicism and Conquest. In What China and India Once Were: The Pasts that May Shape the Global Future. Edited by Sheldon Pollock and Benjamin Elman. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 199–231. [Google Scholar]
  130. Elshakry, Marwa. 2014. Reading Darwin in Arabic, 1860–1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  131. Elsky, Martin. 1989. Authorizing Words: Speech, Writing and Print in the English Renaissance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]
  132. Engelhardt, Dietrich von, ed. 1974. Indices naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischer Periodica bis 1850. Bd. 2: Die chemischen Zeitschriften des Lorenz von Crell. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann. [Google Scholar]
  133. Estermann, Monika, and Ute Schneider. 2007. Wissenschaftsverlage Zwischen Professionalisierung und Popularisierung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [Google Scholar]
  134. Estermann, Monika. 2010. Buchhandel, Buchhandelsgeschichte und Verlagsgeschichtsschreibung vom 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart. Ein Überblick über Quellenlage und Forschungsliteratur. In Buchwissenschaft in Deutschland: Ein Handbuch. Edited by Ursula Rautenberg. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur, pp. 257–320. [Google Scholar]
  135. Falconer, Isobel. 2021. Phases of physics in J. D. Forbes’ Dissertation Sixth for the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1856). History of Science 59: 47–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Fan, Fa-ti. 2014. The Controversy over Spontaneous Generation in Republican China: Science, Authority and the Public. In Science and Technology in Modern China, 1880s–1940s. Edited by Jing Tsu and Benjamin A. Elman. Leiden: Brill, pp. 209–44. [Google Scholar]
  137. Febvre, Lucien, and Henri-Jean Martin. 1958. L’apparition du Livre. Paris: Albin Michel. [Google Scholar]
  138. Fernández de Zamora, Rosa M. 2009. Los Impresos Mexicanos del siglo XVI: Su Presencia en el Patrimonio Cultural del Nuevo Siglo. México: UNAM. [Google Scholar]
  139. Fernández, Pura. 2016. Editores y Editoriales Iberoamericanos (siglos XIX-XXI)-EDI-RED. Alicante: Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes. Available online: https://www.cervantesvirtual.com/portales/editores_editoriales_iberoamericanos/ (accessed on 1 July 22).
  140. Ferreira, Luiz Otávio. 2004. Negócio, política, ciência e vice-versa: Uma história institucional do jornalismo médico brasileiro entre 1827 e 1843. História, Ciências, Saúde, Manguinhos 11: 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  141. Fierro, Alfred. 1985. Masson. In Histoire de L’édition Française. Edited by Henri-Jean Martin and Roger Chartier. Paris: Promodis, vol. 3, p. 219. [Google Scholar]
  142. Fischer, Ernst. 2021. Wissenschafts-, Fach- und Reprintverlage. In Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, vol. 3, pp. 575–617. [Google Scholar]
  143. Fleck, Ludwik. 1935. Entstehung und Entwicklung Einer Wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Basel: Benno Schwabe. [Google Scholar]
  144. Forman, Paul. 1971. Weimar Culture, Causality and Quantum Theory, 1918–1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 3: 1–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Fouché, Pascal, ed. 1998. L’édition Française Depuis 1945. Paris: Éditions du Cercle de la Librairie. [Google Scholar]
  146. Frasca-Spada, Marina, and Nick Jardine, eds. 2000. Books and the Sciences in History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  147. Frost, Simon. 2014. Economising in Public: Publishing History as a Challenge to Scientific Method. Book History 17: 365–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Furth, Charlotte. 1999. A Flourishing Yin: Gender in China’s Medical History. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  149. Furth, Charlotte. 2007. Producing Medical Knowledge through Cases: History, Evidence, and Action. In Thinking with Cases: Specialist Knowledge in Chinese Cultural History. Edited by Charlotte Furth, Judith T. Zeitlin and Ping-chen Hsiung. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 125–151. [Google Scholar]
  150. Fyfe, Aileen, Julie McDougall-Waters, and Noah Moxham, eds. 2015. 350 years of scientific periodicals. Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science 69: 227–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  151. Fyfe, Aileen, Kelly Coate, Stephen Curry, Stuart Lawson, Noah Moxham, and Camilla Mørk Røstvik. 2017. Untangling Academic Publishing: A History of the Relationship between Commercial Interests, Academic Prestige and the Circulation of Research. Available online: https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/10884 (accessed on 1 July 2022).
  152. Fyfe, Aileen. 2004. Science and Salvation: Evangelical Popular Science Publishing in Victorian Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  153. Fyfe, Aileen. 2009. The information revolution. In The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain. Edited by David McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 6, pp. 567–94. [Google Scholar]
  154. Fyfe, Aileen. 2012. Steam-Powered Knowledge: William Chambers and the Business of Publishing, 1820–1860. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  155. Fyfe, Aileen. 2020. Scientific Publications, c. 1500–2000. In Companion to the History of the Book, 2nd ed. Edited by Simon Eliot and Jonathan Rose. Oxford: Oxford University Press, vol. 2, pp. 691–704. [Google Scholar]
  156. Gadd, Ian, Simon Eliot, and William Roger Louis, eds. 2014. The History of Oxford University Press. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  157. Galuzzi, Massimo, Gianni Micheli, and Maria Teresa Monti, eds. 1998. Le Forme Della Comunicazione Scientifica. Milano: F. Angeli. [Google Scholar]
  158. García Ballester, Luis, José M. López Piñero, and José L. Peset, eds. 2002. Historia de la Ciencia y de la Técnica en la Corona de Castilla. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, Consejería de Educación y Cultura, 4 vols. [Google Scholar]
  159. García Ballester, Luis. 2002. La producción y circulación de obras médicas. In Historia de la Ciencia y de la Técnica en la Corona de Castilla. Edited by Luis García Ballester. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, Consejería de Educación y Cultura, vol. 1, pp. 709–88. [Google Scholar]
  160. García Hurtado, Manuel-Reyes. 2002. El arma de la Palabra: Los Militares Españoles y la Cultura Escrita en el Siglo XVIII (1700–1808). A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña, Servicio de Publicacións. [Google Scholar]
  161. García Naharro, Fernando. 2015. La edición académica. Las ediciones científicas y el libro técnico. In Historia de la edición en España (1939–1975). Edited by Jesús A. Martín Martínez. Madrid: Marcial Pons, pp. 759–82. [Google Scholar]
  162. García Naharro, Fernando. 2019. Editando Ciencia y Técnica Durante el Franquismo. Una Historia Cultural de la Editorial Gustavo Gili (1939–1966). Zaragoza: Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza. [Google Scholar]
  163. Gardey, Délphine. 2008. Écrire, Calculer, Classer. Comment une Révolution de Papier a Transformé les Sociétés Contemporaines (1800–1940). Paris: La Découverte. [Google Scholar]
  164. Garfield, Eugene. 1964. The Use of Citation Data in Writing the History of Science. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information. [Google Scholar]
  165. Garrison, Fielding H. 1934. The Medical and Scientific Periodicals of the 17th and 18th Centuries. Bulletin of the Institute of the History of Medicine 2: 285–343. [Google Scholar]
  166. Garza Merino, Sonia. 2004. El "Tratado de mathemáticas" de Juan Pérez de Moya en la imprenta. In La Memoria de Los Libros: Estudios Sobre la Historia del Escrito y de la Lectura en Europa y América. Edited by María I. de Páiz Hernández. Salamanca: Instituto de Historia del Libro y de la Lectura, vol. 1, pp. 435–62. [Google Scholar]
  167. Gerini, Christian, and Norbert Verdier, eds. 2014. L’émergence de la Presse Mathématique en Europe au 19ème Siècle. Formes Éditoriales et études de cas (France, Espagne, Italie et Portugal). London: College Publications. [Google Scholar]
  168. Geus, Armin, ed. 1971. Indices naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischer Periodica bis 1850. Bd. 1: Der Naturforscher 1774–1804. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann. [Google Scholar]
  169. Gibbs, W. Wayt. 1995. Lost Science in the Third World. Scientific American 273: 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Gielas, Anne, and Aileen Fyfe, eds. 2020. Editorship and the editing of scientific journals, 1750–1950. Centaurus 62: 5–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Gierl, Martin. 1997. Pietismus und Aufklärung. Theologische Polemik und die Kommunikationsreform der Wissenschaft am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. [Google Scholar]
  172. Gilbert, G. Nigel. 1976. The Transformation of Research Findings into Scientific Knowledge. Social Studies of Science 6: 281–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Gilbert, G. Nigel. 1977. Referencing as Persuasion. Social Studies of Science 7: 113–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Gingerich, Owen. 2004. The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus. New York: Walker. [Google Scholar]
  175. Gitelman, Lisa. 2000. Scripts, Grooves and Writing Machines Representing Technology in the Edison Era. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  176. Giuliani, Alejandra. 2018. Editores y Política. Entre el Mercado Latinoamericano de Libros y el Primer Peronismo (1938–1955). Buenos Aires: Tren en Movimiento. [Google Scholar]
  177. Golinski, Jan. 2005. Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  178. Golvers, Noël. 2012. Libraries of Western Learning for China. Circulation of Western Books between Europe and China in the Jesuit Mission (ca. 1650–ca. 1750). Vol. 1. Logistics of Book Acquisition and Circulation. Leuven: Ferdinand Verbiest Institute, KU Leuven, 2 vols. [Google Scholar]
  179. Golvers, Noël. 2013. Libraries of Western Learning for China. Circulation of Western Books between Europe and China in the Jesuit Mission (ca. 1650–ca. 1750) Vol. 2. Formation of Jesuit Libraries. Leuven: Ferdinand Verbiest Institute, KU Leuven. [Google Scholar]
  180. González Bueno, Antonio, and Raúl Rodríguez Nozal. 2002. La imprenta y los grabados científicos. In Historia de la ciencia y de la técnica en la Corona de Castilla. Edited by José L. Peset Reig. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, Consejería de Educación y Cultura, vol. 4, pp. 93–110. [Google Scholar]
  181. Gorman, Michael J. 2002. La Rivoluzione scientifica: Luoghi e forme della conoscenza. La comunicazione scientifica ed erudita. In Storia della Scienza. Directed by Sandro Petruccioli. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, vol. 5, pp. 91–122. [Google Scholar]
  182. Götze, Heinz. 1994. Springer-Verlag: Stationen seiner Geschichte. Teil 2: 1945–1992. Heidelberg: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  183. Gourevitch, Danielle, and Jean-François Vincent, eds. 2006. Jean-Baptiste Baillière et Fils, Éditeurs de Médecine. Paris: BIUM-De Boccard. [Google Scholar]
  184. Govoni, Paola. 2002. Un Pubblico per la Scienza. La Divulgazione Scientifica nell’Italia in Formazione. Roma: Carocci. [Google Scholar]
  185. Govoni, Paola. 2010. Scienza per tutti. In Libri per Tutti. I Generi Editoriali di Larga Circolazione tra Antico Regime ed età Contemporanea. Edited by Lodovica Braida and Mario Infelise. Torino: Utet, pp. 163–81. [Google Scholar]
  186. Grafton, Anthony T. 1980. The Importance of Being Printed [review of The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe by Elizabeth L. Eisenstein]. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 11: 265–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Grafton, Anthony. 1991. Defenders of the Text: The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450–1800. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  188. Graham, Angus C. 1973. China, Europe and the Origins of Modern Science: Needham’s The Grand Titration. In Chinese Science: Explorations of an Ancient Tradition. Edited by Shigeru Nakayama and Nathan Sivin. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 45–70. [Google Scholar]
  189. Granados Salinas, Tomás. 2017. Libros. México: Secretaría de Cultura. [Google Scholar]
  190. Gross, Alan G. 2006. Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. [Google Scholar]
  191. Gross, Alan G., Joseph E. Harmon, and Michael Reidy. 2002. Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  192. Gross, Robert A., and Mary Kelley, eds. 2010. An Extensive Republic: Print, Culture, and Society in the New Nation, 1790–1840. In A History of the Book in America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, vol. II. [Google Scholar]
  193. Guía Moruno, Daniel. 2021. La Editorial Montaner y Simón y la estrategia publicitaria a finales del siglo XIX y principios del XX. El catálogo como herramienta de estudio. In Redes del libro en España: Agentes y circulación del impreso (siglos XVII-XX). Edited by Lluís Agustí, Mònica Baró and Pedro Rueda Ramírez. Zaragoza: Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza, pp. 253–78. [Google Scholar]
  194. Guibovich Pérez, Pedro. 2002. Bibliotecas de médicos en Lima colonial. In Del autor al Lector. Edited by Carmen Castañeda and Myrna Cortés. México D. F.: CIESAS, pp. 293–304. [Google Scholar]
  195. Gutiérrez Lorenzo, María del Pilar. 2007. Impresos y Libros en la Historia Económica de México (siglos XVI-XIX). Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara. [Google Scholar]
  196. Gutiérrez-Maya, Jazmín I., Francisco Collazo-Reyes, and Rodrigo A. Vega y Ortega Baez. 2020. The expansion of modern science through the Catalog of Scientific Papers, XIX century: The Latin American presence. Scientometrics 126: 2575–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Habermas, Jürgen. 1962. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Neuwied: Luchterhand. [Google Scholar]
  198. Haddad, Thomás A. S., ed. 2015. História da ciência e história do livro. Circumscribere 15: 1–47. [Google Scholar]
  199. Hall, Mary B. 1965. Oldenburg and the art of Scientific Communication. The British Journal for the History of Science 2: 277–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Hall, Mary B. 1975. The Royal Society’s role in the diffusion of information in the seventeenth century. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 29: 173–92. [Google Scholar]
  201. Hallewell, Laurence. 1982. Books in Brazil: A History of the Publishing Trade. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press. [Google Scholar]
  202. Hapke, Thomas. 1997. Wilhelm Ostwald und seine Initiativen zur Organisation und Standardisierung naturwissenschaftlicher Publizistik: Enzyklopädismus, Internationalismus und Taylorismus am Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts. In Fachschrifttum, Bibliothek und Naturwissenschaft im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Edited by Christoph Meinel. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 157–64. [Google Scholar]
  203. Hapke, Thomas. 2005. Ostwald and the Bibliographic Movement. In Wilhelm Ostwald at the Crossroads Between Chemistry, Philosophy and Media Culture. Edited by Britta Görs, Nikolaos Psarros and Paul Ziche. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, pp. 115–34. [Google Scholar]
  204. Harff, Horst. 1941. Die Entwicklung der deutschen chemischen Fachzeitschrift: Ein Beitrag zur Wesensbestimmung der Wissenschaftlichen Fachzeitschrift. Berlin: Verlag Chemie. [Google Scholar]
  205. Heilbron, John L., ed. 2003. The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  206. Hernández Socha, Yuiruban. 2018. Un suceso Editorial en el Campo de las Publicaciones Especializadas de Biología en Colombia. Una Aproximación Histórica al Circuito de la Comunicación de Caldasia, 1940–1966. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín, Colombia. [Google Scholar]
  207. Hernández Socha, Yuiruban. 2020. Scientific encounters between Colombia and the United States analyzed through publishing practices in journal: The birds of the Republic of Colombia as a publishing event. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 82: 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Hess, Volker, and J. Andrew Mendelsohn. 2013. Paper Technology in der Frühen Neuzeit. NTM-Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 21: 1–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  209. Hinrichs, T. J. 2011. Governance through Medical Texts and the Role of Print. In Knowledge and Text Production in an Age of Print: China, 900–1400. Edited by Lucille Chia and Hilde De Weerdt. Leiden: Brill, pp. 217–38. [Google Scholar]
  210. Hochadel, Oliver, Miquel Carandell Baruzzi, and Clara Florensa. 2016. Scuffles, Scoops and Scams. The Construction of Prehistoric Knowledge in Newspapers. Centaurus 58: 135–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Holl, Frank. 1996. Produktion und Distribution wissenschaftlicher Literatur. Der Physiker Max Born und sein Verleger Ferdinand Springer 1913–1970. Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 45: 1–225. [Google Scholar]
  212. Hollmann, Werner. 1937. Die Zeitschriften der exakten Naturwissenschaften in Deutschland. München: Zeitungswissenschaftliche Vereinigung. [Google Scholar]
  213. Holmes, Frederick L. 1987. Scientific Writing and Scientific Discovery. Isis 78: 220–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Houghton, Bernard. 1975. Scientific Periodicals: Their Historical Development, Characteristics and Control. Hamden: Linnet Books. [Google Scholar]
  215. Howsam, Leslie. 2000. An experiment with science for the nineteenth-century book trade: The International Scientific Series. British Journal for the History of Science 33: 187–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  216. Hu, Danian. 2005. China and Albert Einstein: The Reception of the Physicist and his Theory in China, 1917–1979. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  217. Hunter, Andrew, ed. 2000. Thornton and Tully’s Scientific Books, Libraries and Collectors, 4th ed. Farnham: Ashgate. [Google Scholar]
  218. Husson, Mathieu, and Richard L. Kremer, eds. 2016. How do Writings in the Early Astral Sciences Reveal Mathematical Practices and Practitioners? Centaurus 58: 1–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Jäger, Georg. 1990. Buchhandel und Wissenschaft: Zur Aussdifferenzierung des wissenschaftlichen Buchhandels. Lumis-Schriften 26: 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  220. Jäger, Georg. 2001. Der wissenschaftliche Verlag & Medizinisher Verlag. In Geschichte des Deutschen Buchhandels im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Edited by Georg Jäger and Wolfram Siemann. Frankfurt: Buchhändler-Vereinigung, vol. 1, pp. 423–85. [Google Scholar]
  221. Jäger, Georg, ed. 2003. Wissenschaftliche und technische Zeitschriften. In Geschichte des Deutschen Buchhandels im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt: MVB Marketing-und Verlagsservice des Buchhandels, vol. 1, pp. 390–408. [Google Scholar]
  222. Jalón, Mauricio. 1997. Sobre la cultura técnica impulsada por Carlos III: La Encyclopedia Metódica, como empresa ilustrada. Investigaciones históricas: Época moderna y contemporánea 17: 101–36. [Google Scholar]
  223. Jami, Catherine. 2012. The Emperor’s New Mathematics: Western Learning and Imperial Authority During the Kangxi Reign (1662–1722). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  224. Jammes, Bruno. 1984. Le livre de science. In Histoire de l’édition française. Edited by Henri-Jean Martin and Roger Chartier. Paris: Promodis, vol. 1, pp. 206–17. [Google Scholar]
  225. Johns, Adrian. 1998a. The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  226. Johns, Adrian. 1998b. Science and the Book in Modern Cultural Historiography. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 29: 167–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Johns, Adrian. 2000. Miscellaneous methods: Authors, societies and journals in early modern England. The British Journal for the History of Science 33: 159–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Johns, Adrian. 2002. Science and the book. In The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain. Edited by John Barnard and Donald F. McKenzie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 4, pp. 274–303. [Google Scholar]
  229. Johns, Adrian. 2003a. Print and Public Science. In The Cambridge History of Science. Edited by Roy Porter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 4, pp. 536–60. [Google Scholar]
  230. Johns, Adrian. 2003b. Reading and Experiment in the Early Royal Society. In Reading, Society and Politics in Early Modern England. Edited by Kevin Sharpe and Steven N. Zwicker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 244–71. [Google Scholar]
  231. Johns, Adrian. 2006. Coffeehouses and print shops. In The Cambridge History of Science. Edited by Katherine Park and Lorraine Daston. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 3, pp. 320–40. [Google Scholar]
  232. Johns, Adrian. 2013. The Use of Print in the History of Science. The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 107: 393–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Johns, Adrian. 2016. Por qué necesitamos una historia de la lectura científica. In De la Piedra al Pixel: Reflexiones en Torno a las Edades del Libro. Edited by Marina Garone Gravier, Isabel Galina Russell and Laurette Godinas. México: UNAM, pp. 20–38. [Google Scholar]
  234. Jones, Peter M. 1999. Medicine and Science. In The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain. Edited by Lotte Hellinga and Joseph B. Trapp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 3, pp. 433–48. [Google Scholar]
  235. Jovanovic, Frank, Viera Dhuin Rebolledo, and Norbert Verdier, eds. 2018. Science(s) et édition(s) des années 1780 à l’entre-deux-guerres. Philosophia Scientiae 22: 3–201. [Google Scholar]
  236. Jungnickel, Christa, and Russell McCormmach. 1986. Intellectual Mastery of Nature. Theoretical Physics from Ohm to Einstein. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2 vols. [Google Scholar]
  237. Kaestle, Carl F., and Janice A. Radway, eds. 2009. Print in Motion: The Expansion of Publishing and Reading in the United States, 1880–1940. In A History of the Book in America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, vol. IV. [Google Scholar]
  238. Kalifa, Dominique, Philippe Régnier, Marie-Ève Thérenty, and Alain Vaillant, eds. 2011. La civilisation du Journal. Histoire Culturelle et Littéraire de la Presse Française au XIXe Siècle. Paris: Nouveau Monde Éditions. [Google Scholar]
  239. Karpinski, Louis C. 1940. Bibliography of Mathematical Works Printed in America through 1850. With the cooperation for Washington Libraries of Walter F. Shenton. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]
  240. Kim, Yung S. 1998. Problems and Possibilities in the Study of the History of Korean Science. Osiris 13: 48–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Kim, Yung S. 2004. The “Why not” Question of Chinese Science: The Scientific Revolution and Traditional Chinese Science. East Asian Science, Technology and Medicine 22: 96–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Kirchner, Joachim. 1928. Die Grundlagen des deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens. Mit einer Gesamtbibliographie der deutschen Zeitschriften bis zum Jahre 1790. Erster Teil: Bibliographische un buchhandelsgeschictliche Untersuchungen. Leipzig: Karl W. Hiersemann. [Google Scholar]
  243. Kirchner, Joachim. 1931. Die Grundlagen des deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens. Mit einer Gesamtbibliographie der deutschen Zeitschriften bis zum Jahre 1790. Zweiter Teil: Die Bibliographie der deutschen Zeitschriften bis zur Französischen Revolution. Statistische Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Karl W. Hiersemann. [Google Scholar]
  244. Kirchner, Joachim. 1958. Das Deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen: Seine Geschichte und Seine Probleme. Teil 1: Von den Anfängen bis zum Zeitalter der Romantik, 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. [Google Scholar]
  245. Kirchner, Joachim. 1962. Das Deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen: Seine Geschichte und Seine Probleme. Teil 2: Vom Wiener Kongress bis zum Ausgange des 19. Jahrhunderts, 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. [Google Scholar]
  246. Knight, David M. 2002. Scientists and Their Publics: Popularization of Science in the Nineteenth Century. In The Cambridge History of Science. Edited by Mary J. Nye. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 5, pp. 72–90. [Google Scholar]
  247. Knight, Leah. 2009. Of Books and Botany in Early Modern England: Sixteenth-Century Plants and Print Culture. Burlington: Ahsgate. [Google Scholar]
  248. Knorr, Karin D., and Dietrich Knorr. 1978. From Scenes to Scripts: On the Relationship Between Laboratory Research and Published Paper in Science. Research Memorandum No. 132. Vienna and Ithaca: Institute for Advanced Studies-Cornell University. [Google Scholar]
  249. Kronick, David A. 1962. A History of Scientific and Technical Periodicals: The Origins and Development of the Scientific Press, 1665–1790. New York: Scarecrow Press. [Google Scholar]
  250. Kronick, David A. 1991. Scientific and Technical Periodicals of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: A Guide. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press. [Google Scholar]
  251. Kruse, Otto. 2006. The Origins of Writing in the Disciplines. Written Communication 23: 331–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  253. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1975. Tradition mathématique et tradition expérimentale dans le développement de la physique. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 30: 975–98. [Google Scholar]
  254. Kurtz, Joachim. 2010. Messenger of the Sacred Heart: Li Wenyu (1840–1911) and the Jesuit Periodical Press in Late Qing Shanghai. In From Woodblocks to the Internet: Chinese Publishing and Print Culture in Transition, circa 1800 to 2008. Edited by Cynthia Brokaw and Christopher A. Reed. Leiden: Brill, pp. 81–110. [Google Scholar]
  255. Labarca, Mariana. 2020. Los libros de medicina en el Chile del siglo XVIII: Tipologías, propietarios y dinámicas de circulación. Anuario Colombiano de Historia Social y de la Cultura 47: 345–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. LaFollette, Marcel C. 1992. Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  257. LaFollette, Marcel C. 2009. Crafting a Communications Infrastructure: Scientific and Technical Publishing in the United States. In A History of the Book in America. Directed by David D. Hall. Chapel Hill: American Antiquarian Society and University of North Carolina Press, vol. IV, pp. 234–59. [Google Scholar]
  258. Lalli, Roberto. 2014. A new scientific journal takes the scene: The birth of reviews of modern physics. Annalen Der Physik 526: 83–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Lalli, Roberto. 2016. ‘Dirty work’, but someone has to do it: Howard P. Robertson and the refereeing practices of Physical Review in the 1930s. Notes and Records. The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science 70: 151–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  260. Latour, Bruno, and Paolo Fabbri. 1977. La rhétorique de la science. 1977. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 13: 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Lean, Eugenia. 2014. Proofreading Science: Editing and Experimentation in Manuals by a 1930s Industrialist. In Science and Technology in Modern China, 1880s–1940s. Edited by Jing Tsu and Benjamin A. Elman. Leiden: Brill, pp. 185–208. [Google Scholar]
  262. Lecoq, Benoît. 1986. L’édition et la science. In Histoire de l’édition Francaise. Edited by Henri-Jean Martin and Roger Chartier. Paris: Promodis, vol. 4, pp. 307–17. [Google Scholar]
  263. Lefanu, William R. 1937a. British Periodicals of Medicine: A Chronological List. Bulletin of the Institute of the History of Medicine 5 (8): 735–61. [Google Scholar]
  264. Lefanu, William R. 1937b. British Periodicals of Medicine: A Chronological List. Bulletin of the Institute of the History of Medicine 5 (9): 827–46. [Google Scholar]
  265. Lefanu, William R. 1938. British Periodicals of Medicine: A Chronological List. Bulletin of the Institute of the History of Medicine 6 (6): 614–48. [Google Scholar]
  266. Leitão, Henrique. 2004. O livro científico antigo, séculos XV e XVI: Notas sobre a situação portuguesa. In O Livro Científico dos Séculos XV e XVI. Ciências Físico-Matemáticas na Biblioteca Nacional. Lisboa: Biblioteca Nacional, pp. 15–53. [Google Scholar]
  267. Lembrecht, Christina. 2007. Wissenschaftsverlage im Feld der Physik: Profile und Positionsverschiebungen 1900–1933. Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 61: 111–200. [Google Scholar]
  268. Lenoir, Timothy. 1998. Inscribing Science: Scientific Texts and the Materiality of Communication. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  269. Leong, Elaine, Angela Creager, and Mathias Grote, eds. 2020. Learning by the Book: Manuals and Handbooks in the History of Science. BJHS Themes 5: 1–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  270. Leong, Elaine. 2019. Read. Do. Observe. Take note! Centaurus 60: 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Lewenstein, Bruce V. 2009. Science Books since 1945. In A History of the Book in America. Directed by Hall David D.. Chapel Hill: American Antiquarian Society and University of North Carolina Press, vol. V, pp. 347–60. [Google Scholar]
  272. Lightman, Bernard, ed. 2004. Focus: Scientific Readers. Isis 95: 420–48. [Google Scholar]
  273. Lightman, Bernard, ed. 2016. A Companion to the History of Science. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  274. Lightman, Bernard. 2007. Victorian Popularizers of Science: Designing Nature for New Audiences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  275. Lilley, Samuel. 1948. Nicholson’s Journal, 1797–1813. Annals of Science 6: 78–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Lisboa, João L. 1991. Ciência e Política. Ler nos finais do Antigo Regime. Lisboa: INIC. [Google Scholar]
  277. Llanas, Manuel. 2004. L’edició a Catalunya: El segle XIX. Barcelona: Gremi d’Editors de Catalunya. [Google Scholar]
  278. Llanas, Manuel. 2005. L’edició a Catalunya el segle XX (fins a 1939). Barcelona: Gremi d’Editors de Catalunya. [Google Scholar]
  279. Llanas, Manuel. 2006. L’edició a Catalunya el segle XX (1939–1975). Barcelona: Gremi d’Editors de Catalunya. [Google Scholar]
  280. Lloyd, Geoffrey, and Nathan Sivin. 2002. The Way and the Word: Science and Medicine in Early China and Greece. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  281. López Piñero, José M. 1979. Ciencia y Técnica en la Sociedad Española de los Siglos XVI y XVII. Barcelona: Labor. [Google Scholar]
  282. López Piñero, José M., and Francesc Bujosa Homar. 1981. Los Impresos Científicos Españoles de los Siglos XV y XVI. Inventario, bibliometría y thesaurus. Volumen I: Introducción. Inventario A-C. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. [Google Scholar]
  283. López Piñero, José M., María José Báguena Cervellera, José Luis Barona Vilar, José Luis Fresquet Febrer, María Luz López Terrada, José Pardo Tomás, and Vicente Luis Salavert Fabiani. 1987. Bibliographia Medica Hispanica, 1475–1950. Volumen I: Libros y Folletos, 1475-1600. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, [a series of 9 volumes until 1996]. [Google Scholar]
  284. López Piñero, José M., María-José Báguena Cervellera, José Luis Barona Vilar, Francesc Bujosa Homar, José Luis Fresquet Febrer, María Luz López Terrada, Víctor Navarro Brotons, José Pardo Tomás, and Eugenio Portela Marco. 1984. Los Impresos Científicos Españoles de los Siglos XV y XVI. Inventario, bibliometría y thesaurus. Volúmenes II-III: Inventario D-Q. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. [Google Scholar]
  285. López Piñero, José M., María-José Báguena Cervellera, José Luis Barona Vilar, José Luis Fresquet Febrer, María Luz López Terrada, Víctor Navarro Brotons, José Pardo Tomás, and Eugenio Portela Marco. 1986. Los Impresos Científicos Españoles de los Siglos XV y XVI. Inventario, bibliometría y thesaurus. Volumen IV: Introducción. Inventario R-Z. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. [Google Scholar]
  286. López Piñero, José M., Mariano Peset Reig, and Luis García Ballester. 1973. Bibliografía histórica sobre la ciencia y la técnica en España. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, 2 vols. [Google Scholar]
  287. Luhmann, Niklas. 1975. Soziologische Aufklärung 2. Aufsätze zur Theorie der Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  288. Lundgren, Anders, and Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, eds. 2000. Communicating Chemistry: Textbooks and Their Audiences, 1789–1939. Canton: Science History Publications. [Google Scholar]
  289. Lützen, Jesper. 2002. International Participation in Liouville’s Journal de Mathématiques pures et Appliquées. In Mathematics Unbound: The Evolution of an International Mathematical Research Community, 1800–1945. Edited by Karen H. Parshall and Adrian C. Rice. Providence: American Mathematical Society-London Mathematical Society, pp. 89–104. [Google Scholar]
  290. Lux, David S., and Harold J. Cook. 1998. Closed Circles or Open Networks?: Communicating at a Distance during the Scientific Revolution. History of Science 36: 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. MacLeod, Roy. 1980. Evolutionism, Internationalism and Commercial Enterprise in Science: The International Scientific Series 1871–1910. In The Development of Science Publishing in Europe. Edited by Arthur J. Meadows. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  292. Manzer, Bruce M. 1977. The Abstract Journal, 1790–1920. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press. [Google Scholar]
  293. Marcon, Federico. 2015. The Knowledge of Nature and the Nature of Knowledge in Early Modern Japan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  294. Marcon, Federico. 2020. The ‘book’ as fieldwork: ‘textual institutions’ and nature knowledge in early modern Japan. BJHS Themes 5: 131–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Marpeau, Benoît. 2002. Une ascension dans le monde des revues et de l’édition au tournant du siècle: Paul Gaultier. Revue d’histoire du XIXe Siècle 24: 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Marpeau, Benoît. 2010. La «Bibliothèque de philosophie scientifique» de Flammarion. Revue D’histoire Moderne & Contemporaine 57: 185–210. [Google Scholar]
  297. Martín Frechilla, Juan J., Yolanda Texera Arnal, and Alfredo Cilento Sarli, eds. 2005. Un archivo para la historia: Acta Científica Venezolana 1950–2000. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela. [Google Scholar]
  298. Martin, Henri-Jean, and Roger Chartier, eds. 1983. Histoire de L’édition Française. Tome I: Le livre conquérant, du Moyen Age au milieu du XVIIe siècle. Paris: Promodis. [Google Scholar]
  299. Martin, Henri-Jean, and Roger Chartier, eds. 1984. Histoire de L’édition Française. Tome II: Le livre triomphant, 1660-1830. Paris: Promodis. [Google Scholar]
  300. Martin, Henri-Jean, and Roger Chartier, eds. 1985. Histoire de L’édition Française. Tome III: Le temps des éditeurs. Du romantisme à la Belle Époque. Paris: Promodis. [Google Scholar]
  301. Martin, Henri-Jean, and Roger Chartier, eds. 1986. Histoire de L’édition Française. Tome IV: Le livre concurrencé, 1900-1950. Paris: Promodis. [Google Scholar]
  302. Martínez Baracs, Rodrigo. 2014. El largo Descubrimiento del Opera medicinalia de Francisco Bravo. México D. F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica. [Google Scholar]
  303. Martínez Vidal, Àlvar, and Alfons Zarzoso. 2002. Premsa Mèdica Catalana. Barcelona: Societat Catalana d’Història de la Ciència i de la Tècnica. Available online: http://www.premsamedica.cat/ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
  304. Martínez Vidal, Àlvar. 1992. Review of Ciencia y censura. La Inquisición Española y los Libros Científicos en los Siglos XVI y XVII by José Pardo Tomás. Dynamis 12: 382–85. [Google Scholar]
  305. Martínez, José Luis. 1984. El libro en Hispanoamérica. Origen y Desarrollo, 2nd ed. Madrid: Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez. [Google Scholar]
  306. Martins, Ana L. 2001. Revistas em Revista. Imprensa e Práticas Culturais em Tempos de República. São Paulo. 1890–1922. São Paulo: Edusp-Fapesp-Imesp. [Google Scholar]
  307. Matos, Ana C. 2000. Os Agentes e os meios de divulgação científica e tecnológica em Portugal no século XIX. Scripta Nova 69. Available online: http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn-69–29.htm (accessed on 1 July 2022).
  308. Mazzotti, Massimo. 2004. Newton for Ladies. Gentility, gender and radical culture. British Journal for the History of Science 37: 119–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  309. McClellan, James E., III. 1979. The scientific press in transition: Rozier’s journal and the scientific societies in the 1770s. Annals of Science 36: 425–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  310. McClellan, James R., III. 2003. Specialist Control: The Publications Committee of the Académie Royale des Sciences (Paris), 1700–1793. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. [Google Scholar]
  311. McDermott, Joseph P. 2006. A Social History of the Chinese Book: Books and Literati Culture in Late Imperial China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. [Google Scholar]
  312. McDermott, Joseph P. 2016. Review Article: The Ongoing Lives of Books and their Libraries. International Journal of Asian Studies 13: 229–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  313. McDermott, Joseph P., and Peter Burke, eds. 2015. The Book Worlds of East Asia and Europe, 1450–1850: Connections and Comparisons. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. [Google Scholar]
  314. McKenzie, Donald F. 1984. The Sociology of a Text: Oral Culture, Literacy and Print in Early New Zealand. The Library 4: 333–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  315. McKie, Douglas. 1957. The “Observations” of the Abbé François Rozier (1734–1793)-I. Annals of Science 13: 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  316. Meadows, Arthur J. 1974. Communication in Science. London: Butterworths. [Google Scholar]
  317. Meadows, Arthur J. 1980. Development of Science Publishing in Europe. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  318. Medawar, Peter. 1963. Is the scientific paper a fraud? Listener 70: 377–78. [Google Scholar]
  319. Meinel, Christoph. 1993. Structural Changes in International Scientific Communication. In Atti del V Convegno Nazionale di Storia e Fondamenti della Chimica, Perugia, 27–30 Ottobre 1993. Edited by Gianlorenzo Marino. Perugia: Università degli Studi di Perugia-Gruppo Nazionale di Fondamenti e Storia della Chimica-Accademia Nazionale delle Scienze detta dei XL, pp. 47–61. [Google Scholar]
  320. Meinel, Christoph. 1997a. Die Wissenschaftliche Fachzeitschrift: Strukturund Funktionswandel eines Kommunikationsmediums. In Fachschrifttum, Bibliothek und Naturwissenschaft im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 137–56. [Google Scholar]
  321. Meinel, Christoph, ed. 1997b. Fachschriftung, Bibliothek und Naturwissenschaft im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [Google Scholar]
  322. Mendoza, Diego H., and Analía Busala. 2002. La divulgación como estrategia de la comunidad científica argentina: La revista Ciencia e Investigación (1945–1948). Redes 9: 33–62. [Google Scholar]
  323. Merton, Robert K. 1938. Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century England. Osiris 4: 360–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  324. Merton, Robert K. 1949. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press. [Google Scholar]
  325. Merton, Robert K., and Norman W. Storer, eds. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  326. Meyer, Eugenia. 1992. México, un libro Abierto. Memoria. México: CONACULTA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  327. Mignolo, Walter. 1995. The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality and Colonization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]
  328. Minkowski, Christopher. 2010. Sanskrit Scientific Libraries and Their Uses: Examples and Problems of the Early Modern Period. In Looking at it from Asia: The Processes that Shaped the Sources of History of Science. Edited by Florence Bretelle-Establet. Cham: Springer, pp. 81–114. [Google Scholar]
  329. Minor García, Adriana. 2016. Traducción e intercambios científicos entre Estados Unidos y Latinoamérica: El Comité Inter-Americano de Publicación Científica (1941–1949). In Aproximaciones a lo Local y lo Global: América Latina en la Historia de la Ciencia Contemporánea. Compiled by Gisela Mateos and Edna Suárez-Díaz. Ciudad de México: Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, Políticos y Sociales Vicente Lombardo Toledano, pp. 183–214. [Google Scholar]
  330. Mollier, Jean-Yves. 1988. L’Argent et les Lettres: Histoire du Capitalisme d’édition, 1880–1920. Paris: Fayard. [Google Scholar]
  331. Mollier, Jean-Yves. 2015. Une Autre Histoire de L’édition Française. Paris: La Fabrique Éditions. [Google Scholar]
  332. Montecchi, Giorgio. 2001. La stampa e la diffusione del sapere scientifico. In Storia della Scienza. Directed by Sandro Petruccioli. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, vol. 4, pp. 699–710. [Google Scholar]
  333. Morgan, Betty T. 1929. Histoire du journal des Sçavans depuis 1665 jusqu’en 1701. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. [Google Scholar]
  334. Mullaney, Thomas S. 2014. Semiotic Sovereignty: The 1871 Chinese Telegraph Code in Historical Perspective. In Science and Technology in Modern China, 1880s–1940s. Edited by Jing Tsu and Benjamin A. Elman. Leiden: Brill, pp. 153–84. [Google Scholar]
  335. Müller, Helen. 2004. Wissenschaft und Markt um 1900. Das Verlagsunternehmen Walter de Gruyters im literarischen Feld der Jahrhundertwende. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Google Scholar]
  336. Mun, Seung-Hwan. 2013. Printing press without copyright: A historical analysis of printing and publishing in Song, China. Chinese Journal of Communication 6: 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  337. Myers, Greg. 1990. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. [Google Scholar]
  338. Nappi, Carla. 2009. The Monkey and the Inkpot: Natural History and Its Transformations in Early Modern China. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  339. Navarro Brotóns, Víctor, and William Eamon, eds. 2007. Beyond the Black Legend: Spain and the Scientific Revolution. Valencia: Instituto de Historia de la Ciencia y Documentación López Piñero. [Google Scholar]
  340. Neave, E. W. J. 1950. Chemistry in Rozier’s journal. I. The journal and its editors. Annals of Science 6: 416–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  341. Neave, E. W. J. 1951a. Chemistry in Rozier’s journal. II. The phlogiston theory. Annals of Science 7: 101–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  342. Neave, E. W. J. 1951b. Chemistry in Rozier’s journal. III. Pierre Bayen. Annals of Science 7: 144–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  343. Neave, E. W. J. 1951c. Chemistry in Rozier’s journal. IV and V. Annals of Science 7: 284–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  344. Neave, E. W. J. 1951d. Chemistry in Rozier’s journal. VI to VII. Annals of Science 7: 393–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  345. Neave, E. W. J. 1952. Chemistry in Rozier’s journal. VIII and IX. Annals of Science 8: 28–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  346. Neddermeyer, Uwe. 1998. Von der Handschrift zum Gedruckten Buch: Schriftlichkeit und Leseinteresse im Mittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit; Quantitative und Qualitative Aspekte. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2 vols. [Google Scholar]
  347. Nieto Olarte, Mauricio. 2007. Orden natural y orden social: Ciencia y política en el Semanario del Nuevo Reyno de Granada. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes. [Google Scholar]
  348. Nord, David P., Joan S. Rubin, and Michael Schudson, eds. 2009. The Enduring Book: Print Culture in Postwar America. In A History of the Book in America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, vol. V. [Google Scholar]
  349. Nunes, Maria de F. 2001. A Imprensa Periódica Científica (1772–1851): Leituras de “Sciencia Agrícola” em Portugal. Lisboa: Estar Editora. [Google Scholar]
  350. O’Brien, Patrick K. 2009. The Needham Question Updated: A Historiographical Survey and Elaboration. History of Technology 29: 7–28. [Google Scholar]
  351. Ogborn, Miles. 2007. Indian Ink: Script and Print in the Making of the English East India Company. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  352. Olby, Robert C., Geoffrey Cantor, John R. R. Christie, and Jonathan S. Hodge, eds. 1990. Companion to the History of Science. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  353. Olson, David R. 1994. The World on Paper: The Conceptual and Cognitive Implications of Writing and Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  354. Olson, David R. 2004. Knowledge and its Artifacts. In History of Science, History of Text. Edited by Karine Chemla. Cham: Springer, pp. 231–45. [Google Scholar]
  355. Oosterhoff, Richard J. 2018. Making Mathematical Culture: University and Print in the Circle of Lefèvre d’Étaples. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  356. Ostwald, Wilhelm. 1919. Die chemische Literatur un die Organisation der Wissenschaft. In Handbuch der Allgemeinen Chemie. Edited by Wilhelm Ostwald and Carl Drucker. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesselschaft, vol. 1. [Google Scholar]
  357. Pacey, Arnold, and Francesca Bray. 2021. Technology in World Civilization: A Thousand-Year History. Cambridge: MIT Press, revised and expanded Edition. [Google Scholar]
  358. Papanelopoulou, Faidra, and Peter C. Kjærgaard, eds. 2009. Making the Paper: Science and Technology in Spanish, Greek and Danish Newspapers Around 1900. Centaurus 51: 81–167. [Google Scholar]
  359. Pardo Tomás, José, ed. 2010. Ciencia, historia y escritura. Cultura Escrita & Sociedad 10: 7–175. [Google Scholar]
  360. Pardo Tomás, José. 1991. Ciencia y Censura: La Inquisición Española y los Libros Científicos en los Siglos XVI y XVII. Madrid: CSIC. [Google Scholar]
  361. Pardo Tomás, José. 1997a. Reseña Ensayo: Historia de la ciencia e Historia del libro: ¿Un desencuentro? Dynamis 17: 467–74. [Google Scholar]
  362. Pardo Tomás, José. 1997b. La producción impresa de libros científicos en la Corona de Aragón durante el siglo XVI. In La Corona de Aragón y el Mediterráneo, siglos XV-XVI. Edited by Esteban Sarasa and Eliseo Serrano. Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico, pp. 231–66. [Google Scholar]
  363. Pardo Tomás, José. 2002. La difusión de la información científica y técnica. In Historia de la ciencia y de la técnica en la Corona de Castilla. Edited by José M. López Piñero. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, Consejería de Educación y Cultura, vol. 3, pp. 189–220. [Google Scholar]
  364. Pardo Tomás, José. 2004. El médico en la Palestra. Diego Mateo Zapata (1664–1745) y la Ciencia Moderna en España. Salamanca: Junta de Castilla y León/Caja Duero. [Google Scholar]
  365. Parinet, Elisabeth. 1992. La Librairie Flammarion 1875–1914. Paris: IMEC Éditions. [Google Scholar]
  366. Parinet, Elisabeth. 2004. Une histoire de L’édition Contemporaine. XIXe-XXe Siècles. Paris: Seuil. [Google Scholar]
  367. Peiffer, Jeanne, Hélène Gispert, and Philippe Nabonnand, eds. 2018. Interplay Between Mathematical Journals on Various Scales, 1850–1950. Historia Mathematica 45: 323–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  368. Peiffer, Jeanne, Maria Conforti, and Patrizia Delpiano, eds. 2013. L’Europe des journaux savants (XVIIe-XVIIIe siècles). Communication et construction des savoirs. Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences 63: 5–475. [Google Scholar]
  369. Perdiguero Enrique, José Pardo-Tomás, and Àlvar Martínez-Vidal. 2009. Physicians as a public for the popularisation of medicine in interwar Catalonia: The Monografies Mèdiques series. In Popularizing Science and Technology in the European Periphery, 1800–2000. Edited by Faidra Papanelopoulou, Agustí Nieto-Galan and Enrique Perdiguero. Aldershot: Ahsgate, pp. 195–216. [Google Scholar]
  370. Pettegree, Andrew, and Arthur Weduwen. 2019. The Bookshop of the World: Making and Trading Books in the Dutch Golden Age. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  371. Pettitt, Clare. 2004. Patent Inventions: Intellectual Property and the Victorian Novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  372. Phillips, John P. 1966. Liebig and Kolbe, Critical Editors. Chymia 11: 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  373. Pingyi, Chu. 2010. Scientific Texts in Contest, 1600–1800. In Looking at it from Asia: The Processes that Shaped the Sources of History of Science. Edited by Florence Bretelle-Establet. Cham: Springer, pp. 141–66. [Google Scholar]
  374. Pollock, Sheldon. 2006. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture and Power in Premodern India. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  375. Porter, Roy, ed. 2003. The Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 4: Eighteenth-Century Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  376. Preisendanz, Karin. 2018. Text Segmentation, Chapter Naming and the Transmission of Embedded Texts in South Asia, with Special Reference to the Medical and Philosophical Traditions as Exemplified by the Carakasaṃhitā and the Nyāyasūtra. In Pieces and Parts in Scientific Texts. Edited by Florence Bretelle-Establet and Stéphane Schmitt. Cham: Springer, pp. 159–220. [Google Scholar]
  377. Prelat, Carlos. 1960. La ciencia y la técnica en el “Semanario” de Vieytes. Bahía Blanca: Universidad Nacional del Sur. [Google Scholar]
  378. Price, Derek de Solla. 1963. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
  379. Raina, Dhruv. 2010. The French Jesuit Manuscripts on Indian Astronomy: The Narratology and Mystery Surrounding a Late Seventeenth-Early Eighteenth Century Project. In Looking at it from Asia: The Processes that Shaped the Sources of History of Science. Edited by Florence Bretelle-Establet. Cham: Springer, pp. 115–40. [Google Scholar]
  380. Ramírez Martín, Susana M., and Verónica Ramírez Ortega, eds. 2020. La Circulación de Ideas Científicas Entre América y Europa. Lagos de Moreno: Editorial Universidad de Guadalajara. [Google Scholar]
  381. Ramírez, Verónica. 2019. Las mujeres y la divulgación de la ciencia en Chile: Mediadoras de la circulación del saber en revistas culturales (1870–1900). Meridional 13: 15–40. [Google Scholar]
  382. Ramírez-Errázuriz, Verónica, and Patricio Leyton-Alvarado. 2020. Benjamín Vicuña Mackenna y la ciencia: Defensor de la astronomía popular en Chile a finales del siglo XIX. Anuario Colombiano de Historia Social y de la Cultura 38: 71–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  383. Rawski, Evelyn S. 1979. Education and Popular Literacy in Ch’ing China. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]
  384. Reardon-Anderson, James. 1991. The Study of Change: Chemistry in China, 1840–1949. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  385. Rebenich, Stefan. 2013. C. H. Beck 1763–2013. Der Kulturwissenschaftliche Verlag und Seine Geschichte. München: C. H. Beck. [Google Scholar]
  386. Reiber, Matthias. 1999. Anatomie eines Bestsellers. Johann August Unzers Wochenschrift »Der Arzt« (1759–1764). Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  387. Reimer, Doris. 1999. Passion & Kalkül. Der Verleger Georg Andreas Reimer (1776–1842). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  388. Reis, Fernando E. 2007. Scientific Dissemination in Portuguese Encyclopaedic Periodicals, 1779–1820. History of Science 45: 83–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  389. Reis, Fernando E., ed. 2005. Felicidade, Utilidade e Instrução, A Divulgação Científica no Jornal Enciclopédico dedicado à Rainha, 1779; 1788–1793; 1806. Porto: Porto Editora. [Google Scholar]
  390. Remmert, Volker R., and Ute Schneider, eds. 2008a. Publikationsstrategien einer Disziplin: Mathematik in Kaiserreich und Weimarer Republik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [Google Scholar]
  391. Remmert, Volker R., and Ute Schneider. 2008b. Wissenschaftliches Publizieren in der ökonomischen Krise der Weimarer Republik–Das Fallbeispiel Mathematik in den Verlagen B. G. Teubner, Julius Springer und Walter de Gruyter. Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwessens 62: 189–212. [Google Scholar]
  392. Remmert, Volker R., and Ute Schneider. 2010. Eine Disziplin und ihre Verleger. Disziplinenkultur und Publikationswesen der Mathematik in Deutschland, 1871–1949. Bielefeld: Transcript. [Google Scholar]
  393. Richards, Robert J., and Lorraine Daston, eds. 2016. Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty. Reflections on a Science Classic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  394. Richardson, Ruth. 2008. The Making of Mr. Gray’s Anatomy: Bodies, Books, Fortune and Fame. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  395. Roldán Vera, Eugenia. 2003. The British Book Trade and Spanish American Independence: Education and Knowledge Transmission in Transcontinental Perspective. Burlington: Ashgate. [Google Scholar]
  396. Rolim, Marlom S., and Magali Romero Sá. 2013. A política de difusão do germanismo por intermédio dos periódicos da Bayer: A Revista Terapêutica e O Farmacêutico Brasileiro. História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 20: 159–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  397. Roller, Duane. 1946. The Periodical Literature of Physics, Some of Its History, Characteristics and Trends. American Journal of Physics 14: 300–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  398. Rose, Paul L. 1975. The Italian Renaissance of Mathematics: Studies on Humanists and Mathematicians from Petrarch to Galileo. Genève: Droz. [Google Scholar]
  399. Rossi, Paolo. 1962. I filosofi e le Macchine 1400–1700. Milan: Feltrinelli. [Google Scholar]
  400. Sá, Magali R., and André F. Cândido da Silva. 2010. La Revista Médica de Hamburgo y la Revista Médica Germano-Ibero-Americana: Diseminación de la medicina germânica en España y América Latina (1920–1933). Asclepio 62: 7–34. [Google Scholar]
  401. de Sagastizábal, Leandro. 1995. La edición de libros en la Argentina: Una empresa de cultura. Buenos Aires: Eudeba. [Google Scholar]
  402. Saladino García, Alberto. 1996. Ciencia y Prensa Durante la Ilustración Latinoamericana. Toluca: Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México. [Google Scholar]
  403. Sarkowski, Heinz. 1992. Springer-Verlag: Stationen seiner Geschichte. Teil 1: 1842–1945. Heidelberg: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  404. Sávio, Marco A. C. 2013. As guerras de Minerva: A Revista Politénica e a construção de uma ideia de ciência em São Paulo, 1904–1917. História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 20: 1315–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  405. Schirrmacher, Arne, ed. 2012. Popular Science between News and Education: A European Perspective. Science & Education 21: 289–401. [Google Scholar]
  406. Schmeck, Harold M. 1990. Karger–Turning Medical Progress into Print: A Mirror of a Century of Medical and Scientific Publishing. Basel: Karger. [Google Scholar]
  407. Schneider, Laurence. 2003. Biology and Revolution in Twentieth-Century China. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar]
  408. Schneider, Ute. 2007. Der wissenschaftliche Verlag. In Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Edited by Ernst Fischer and Stephan Füssel. München: K. G. Saur, vol. 2, part 1. pp. 379–440. [Google Scholar]
  409. Schneider, Ute. 2015. Wissenschaftliche Verlage. In Geschichte des Deutschen Buchhandels im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Edited by Ernst Fischer and Reinhard Wittmann. Berlin: De Gruyter, vol. 3, part 1. pp. 381–424. [Google Scholar]
  410. Schwartzman, Simon. 1984. A política brasileira de publicações científicas e técnicas: Reflexões. Revista Brasileira de Tecnologia 15: 25–32. [Google Scholar]
  411. Secord, James A. 2004. Knowledge in Transit. Isis 95: 654–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  412. Secord, James A. 2009. Science, technology and mathematics. In The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain. Edited by David McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 6, pp. 443–74. [Google Scholar]
  413. Secord, James A. 2015. Visions of Science: Books and Readers at the Dawn of the Victorian Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  414. Secord, James. 2000. Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  415. Sergescu, R. 1936. Les Mathématiques dans le Journal des Savants: Première période 1666–1701. Osiris 1: 568–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  416. Servos, John W. 1982. A Disciplinary Program That Failed: Wilder D. Bancroft and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1896–1933. Isis 73: 207–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  417. Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the Air Pump. Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  418. Shapin, Steven. 1990. Science and the public. In Companion to the History of Science. Edited by Robert C. Olby, Geoffrey Cantor, John R. R. Christie and Jonathan S. Hodge. London: Routledge, pp. 990–1007. [Google Scholar]
  419. Sheets-Pyenson, Susan. 1981a. A Measure of Success: The Publication of Natural History Journals in Early Victorian Britain. Publishing History 9: 21–36. [Google Scholar]
  420. Sheets-Pyenson, Susan. 1981b. Darwin’s Data: His Reading of Natural History Journals, 1837–1842. Journal of the History of Biology 14: 231–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  421. Sheets-Pyenson, Susan. 1981c. War and Peace in Natural History Publishing: The Naturalist’s Library, 1833–1843. Isis 72: 50–72. [Google Scholar]
  422. Sheets-Pyenson, Susan. 1985. Popular science periodicals in Paris and London: The emergence of a low scientific culture, 1820–1875. Annals of Science 42: 549–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  423. Shen, Grace. 2014a. Periodical Space: Language and the Creation of Scientific Community in Republican China. In Science and Technology in Modern China, 1880s–1940s. Edited by Jing Tsu and Benjamin A. Elman. Leiden: Brill, pp. 269–96. [Google Scholar]
  424. Shen, Grace Y. 2014b. Unearthing the Nation: Modern Geology and Nationalism in Republican China. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  425. Sher, Richard B. 2006. The Enlightenment and the Book: Scottish Authors and Their Publishers in Eighteenth-Century Britain, Ireland and America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  426. Shuttleworth, Sally, and Berris Charnley, eds. 2016. Science periodicals in the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 70: 297–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  427. Silva, Renán. 1988. Prensa y Revolución a Finales del Siglo XVIII. Contribución a un Análisis de la Formación de la Ideologla de la Independencia Nacional. Bogotá: Banco de la República. [Google Scholar]
  428. Silva, Renán. 2002. Los Ilustrados de Nueva Granada, 1760–1808: Genealogía de una comunidad de interpretación. Medellín: Banco de la República-EAFIT. [Google Scholar]
  429. Simon, Josep. 2009. Circumventing the "elusive quarries" of Popular Science: The Communication and Appropriation of Ganot’s Physics in Nineteenth-Century Britain. In Popularising Science and Technology in the European Periphery, 1800–2000. Edited by Faidra Papanelopoulou, Agustí Nieto-Galan and Enrique Perdiguero. Aldershot: Ahsgate, pp. 89–114. [Google Scholar]
  430. Simon, Josep. 2010. The Baillières: The Franco-British Book Trade and the Transit of Knowledge. In Franco-British Interactions in Science since the Seventeenth Century. Edited by Robert Fox and Bernard Joly. London: College Publications, pp. 243–62. [Google Scholar]
  431. Simon, Josep. 2011. Communicating Physics: the Production, Circulation and Appropriation of Ganot’s Textbooks in France and England (1851–1887). London: Pickering & Chatto. [Google Scholar]
  432. Simon, Josep. 2015. History of Science. In Encyclopaedia of Science Education. Edited by Richard Gunstone. Berlin: Springer, pp. 456–59. [Google Scholar]
  433. Simon, Josep. 2016. Textbooks. In A Companion to the History of Science. Edited by Bernard Lightman. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 400–13. [Google Scholar]
  434. Simon, Josep. 2022. Form and Meaning: Textbooks, Pedagogy and the Canonical Genres of Quantum Mechanics. In Oxford Handbook of the History of Interpretations of Quantum Physics. Edited by Olival Freire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 709–34. [Google Scholar]
  435. Siraisi, Nancy G. 1997. The Clock and the Mirror: Girolamo Cardano and Renaissance Medicine. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  436. Smeaton, William A. 1957. L’avant-coureur. The journal in which some of Lavoisier’s earliest research was reported. Annals of Science 13: 219–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  437. Sorá, Gustavo. 2011. El libro y la edición en Argentina: Libros para todos y modelo hispanoamericano. Políticas de la Memoria 10: 125–42. [Google Scholar]
  438. Sorá, Gustavo. 2021. A History of Book Publishing in Contemporary Latin America. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  439. Sorel, Patricia, and Frédérique Leblanc, eds. 2008. Histoire de la librairie française. Paris: Éditions du Cercle de la librairie. [Google Scholar]
  440. Sparks, Marion E. 1919. Chemical Literature and its Use: Notes of twelve Lectures for Juniors in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, University of Illinois. Urbana: Illinois. [Google Scholar]
  441. Spary, Emma C. 2020. Publishing virtue: Medical entrepreneurship and reputation in the Republic of Letters. Centaurus 62: 498–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  442. Stichweh, Rudolph. 1984. Zur Entstehung des modernen Systems wissenschaftlicher Disziplinen: Physik in Deutschland. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. [Google Scholar]
  443. Stichweh, Rudolph. 2003. Differentiation of Scientific Disciplines: Causes and Consequences. In Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. Paris: Unesco. [Google Scholar]
  444. Stöltzner, Michael. 2008. Eine Enzyklopädie für das Kaiserreich. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 31: 11–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  445. Suárez de la Torre, Laura B., and Miguel A. Castro. 2001. Empresa y cultura en tinta y papel (1800–1860). Ciudad de México: UNAM. [Google Scholar]
  446. Suárez de la Torre, Laura B., ed. 2003. Constructores de un cambio cultural: Impresores-editores y libreros en la ciudad de México, 1830–1855. Ciudad de México: Instituto Mora. [Google Scholar]
  447. Subercaseaux, Bernardo. 2000. Historia del libro en Chile (Alma y cuerpo). Santiago: LOM. [Google Scholar]
  448. Tesnière, Valérie. 1985. L’édition universitaire. In Histoire de l’édition française. Edited by Henri-Jean Martin and Roger Chartier. Paris: Promodis, vol. 3, pp. 217–27. [Google Scholar]
  449. Tesnière, Valérie. 2001. Le Quadrige. Un siècle d’édition Universitaire (1860–1968). Paris: Presses universitaires de France. [Google Scholar]
  450. Tesnière, Valérie. 2014a. Filiation et dialogues: Lucien Febvre, Henri-Jean Martin et l’École pratique des hautes études. In 50 ans D’histoire du Livre: 1958–2008. Edited by Dominique Varry. Villeurbanne: Presses de l’ENSSIB, pp. 24–39. [Google Scholar]
  451. Tesnière, Valérie. 2021. Au bureau de la revue. Une histoire de la publication scientifique (XIXe-XXe siècle). Paris: EHESS. [Google Scholar]
  452. Tesnière, Valérie, ed. 2014b. Histoire et actualité de la revue. Revue de synthèse 135: 167–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  453. Tobies, Renate. 1986. Zu Veränderungen im deutschen mathematischen Zeitschriftenwesen um die Wende vom 19. zum 20. Jahrhundert. Teil I: Briefe, Briefentwürfe, Notizen. NTM-Schriftenreihe für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 23: 19–33. [Google Scholar]
  454. Tobies, Renate. 1987. Zu Veränderungen im deutschen mathematischen Zeitschriftenwesen um die Wende vom 19. zum 20. Jahrhundert. Teil II: Einordnung, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Aktivitäten Felix Kleins. NTM-Schriftenreihe für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 24: 31–49. [Google Scholar]
  455. Topham, Jonathan R. 1992. Science and Popular Education in the 1830s: The Role of the Bridgewater Treatises. British Journal for the History of Science 25: 397–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  456. Topham, Jonathan R. 2000a. Scientific Publishing and the Reading of Science in Nineteenth-Century Britain: A Historiographical Survey and Guide to Sources. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31: 559–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  457. Topham, Jonathan R. 2000b. A Textbook Revolution. In Books and the Sciences in History. Edited by Marina Frasca-Spada and Nick Jardine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 317–37. [Google Scholar]
  458. Topham, Jonathan R. 2009. Scientific and medical books, 1780–1830. In The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain. Edited by Michael F. Suarez and Michael L. Turner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 5, pp. 827–33. [Google Scholar]
  459. Topham, Jonathan R. 2022. Reading the Book of Nature: How Eight Best Sellers Reconnected Christianity and the Sciences on the Eve of the Victorian Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  460. Trambailo, Daniel. 2014. The Languages of Medical Knowledge in Tokugawa Japan. In Rethinking East Asian Languages, Vernaculars, and Literacies, 1000–1919. Edited by Bejamin A. Elman. Leiden: Brill, pp. 147–68. [Google Scholar]
  461. Tsien, Tsuen-Hsuin. 1962. Written on Bamboo and Silk: The Beginnings of Chinese Books and Inscriptions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  462. Tsien, Tsuen-Hsuin. 1985. Chemistry and Chemical Technology. Part I: Paper and Printing. In Science and Civilization in China. Edited by Joseph Needham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  463. Tsu, Jing, and Benjamin A. Elman, eds. 2014. Science and Technology in Modern China, 1880s–1940s. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  464. Tsu, Jing. 2014. Chinese Scripts, Codes and Typewriting Machines. In Science and Technology in Modern China, 1880s–1940s. Edited by Jing Tsu and Benjamin A. Elman. Leiden: Brill, pp. 115–52. [Google Scholar]
  465. Turi, Gabrielle, ed. 1997. Storia Dell’editoria Nell’italia Contemporanea. Firenze: Giunti. [Google Scholar]
  466. Twitchett, Denis. 1983. Printing and Publishing in Medieval China. New York: Frederic C. Beil, Publisher. [Google Scholar]
  467. Valderrama, Lorena B., and Verónica Ramírez Errázuriz. 2020. Lo que auguran los astros: Espectáculos, maravillas y catástrofes en la prensa chilena (1868–1912). Santiago de Chile: RIL Editores. [Google Scholar]
  468. Valdez Garza, Dalia. 2014. Libros y lectores en la Gazeta de literatura de México (1788–1795) de José Antonio Alzate. México: Bonilla Artigas Editores-Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey. [Google Scholar]
  469. Valdez Garza, Dalia. 2016. El periódico-libro como concepto para el estudio de la prensa médica de México. In Print Culture: Essays on Latin American Book History. Edited by Blanca López de Mariscal, Donna M. Kabalen de Bichara and Paloma Vargas Montes. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 222–35. [Google Scholar]
  470. Valleriani, Matteo, and Andrea Ottone, eds. 2022. Publishing Sacrobosco’s De sphaera in Early Modern Europe. Modes of Material and Scientific Exchange. Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  471. Veen, Sytze van der. 2008. Brill: 325 Jaar Uitgeven voor Wetenschap. Leiden: Brill. [Google Scholar]
  472. Vega y Ortega Baez, Rodrigo A. 2018. Política botánica en Hispanoamérica: Dos revistas de ciencias naturales (1799–1804) y su red lector-autor. Bibliographica 1: 79–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  473. Vega y Ortega Baez, Rodrigo A., ed. 2020. Historia de las Relaciones Entre la Prensa y las Ciencias Naturales, Médicas y Geográficas de México (1836–1940). Ciudad de México: Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, UNAM. [Google Scholar]
  474. Venancio, Giselle M. 2013. Reading about science in nineteenth century Brazil: Revista Popular, 1859–1862. História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 20: 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  475. Verdier, Norbert. 2009. Les journaux de mathématiques dans la première moitié du XIXe siècle en Europe. Philosophia Scientiæ 13: 97–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  476. Verdier, Norbert. 2013. Éditer puis vendre des mathématiques avec la maison Bachelier (1812–1864). Revue d’histoire des mathématiques 19: 79–145. [Google Scholar]
  477. Verdier, Norbert. 2017. Le livre mathématique au XIXe siècle: Libraires, typographes et graveurs (1810–1864). In Le livre technique avant le XXe siècle. À l’échelle du monde. Edited by Liliane Hilaire-Pérez, Valérie Nègre, Delphine Spicq and Koen Vermeir. Paris: CNRS, pp. 395–407. [Google Scholar]
  478. Verdoorn, Franz. 1948. The Development of Scientific Publications and Their Importance in the Promotion of International Scientific Relations. Science 107: 492–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  479. Vergara, Moema. 2020. A Revista Brasileira e a História da Divulgação da Ciência no Brasil Oitocentista. Curitiba: Appris. [Google Scholar]
  480. Vessuri, Hebe. 1989. Una estrategia de publicación científica para la fisiología latinoamericana: Acta Physiologica Latinoamericana, 1950–1971. Interciencia 14: 9–13. [Google Scholar]
  481. Vessuri, Hebe. 1987. La Revista Científica Periférica. El caso de Acta Científica Venezolana. Interciencia 12: 124–34. [Google Scholar]
  482. Vittu, Jean-Pierre. 2002. La formation d’une institution scientifique: Le Journal des savants de 1665 à 1714. Journal des savants 2: 179–203, 349–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  483. Wale, Matthew. 2022. Making Entomologists: How Periodicals Shaped Scientific Communities in Nineteenth-Century Britain. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. [Google Scholar]
  484. Walters, Alice. 2009. Scientific and medical books, 1695–1780. In The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain. Edited by Michael F. Suarez and Michael L. Turner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 5, pp. 818–26. [Google Scholar]
  485. Waquet, Françoise. 2003. Parler comme un livre. L’oralité et le savoir (XVIe-XXe siècle). Paris: Albin Michel. [Google Scholar]
  486. Waquet, Françoise. 2015. L’ordre Matériel du Savoir. Comment les Savants Travaillent XVIe-XXIe Siècle. Paris: CNRS. [Google Scholar]
  487. Warwick, Andrew. 2003. Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the Rise of Mathematical Physics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  488. Watts, Ian P. 2015. Philosophical Intelligence: Letters, Print and Experiment during Napoleon’s Continental Blockade. Isis 106: 749–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  489. Wegner, Robert. 2004. Livros do Arco do Cego no Brasil Colonial. História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 11: 131–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  490. Weinberg, Gregorio. 2020. Escritos Sobre el libro y la Edición en América Latina. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, UNIPE. [Google Scholar]
  491. Weltman, Wanda L. 2002. A produção científica publicada pelo Instituto Oswaldo Cruz no período 1900 a 1917: Um estudo exploratório. História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 9: 159–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  492. Wesolowski, Tilmann. 2010. Verleger und Verlagspolitik der Wissenschaftsverlage R. Oldenbourg zwischen Kaiserreich und Nationalsozialismus. München: Meidenbauer. [Google Scholar]
  493. Westman, Robert S. 1980. On Communication and Cultural Change [Review of The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe by Elizabeth L. Eisenstein]. Isis 71: 474–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  494. Westwick, Peter J. 2003. Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia. In The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. Edited by John L. Heilbron. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 404–5. [Google Scholar]
  495. Wilding, Nick. 2016. The Printing Press. In A Companion to the History of Science. Edited by Bernard Lightman. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 344–57. [Google Scholar]
  496. Wille, Friedrich. 1986. Die Mathematik im Verlag B. G. Teubner. In Wechselwirkungen. Der Wissenschaftliche Verlag als Mittler. 175 Jahre Teubner 1811–1986. Stuttgart: Teubner, pp. 29–72. [Google Scholar]
  497. Wimmel, Bernd, and Armin Geus, eds. 1981. Indices naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischer Periodica bis 1850. Bd. 3: Die tiermedizinischen Zeitschriften des 18. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann. [Google Scholar]
  498. Wolfe, Gerard R. 1981. The House of Appleton: The History of a Publishing House and its Relationship to the Cultural, Social and Political Events that Helped Shape the Destiny of New York City. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press. [Google Scholar]
  499. Wulf, Stefan. 2013. Die “Revista médica de Hamburgo”. Eine medizinische Fachzeitschrift als Instrument deutscher auswärtiger Kulturpropaganda während der Weimarer Republik. Medizinhistorisches Journal 48: 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  500. Yeo, Richard. 2001. Encyclopaedic Visions: Scientific Dictionaries and Enlightenment Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  501. Yeo, Richard. 2007. Lost Encyclopedias: Before and after the Enlightenment. Book History 10: 47–68. [Google Scholar]
  502. Zemon-Davis, Natalie. 1983. Le monde de l’imprimerie humaniste: Lyon. In Histoire de l’édition française. Edited by Henri-Jean Martin and Roger Chartier. Paris: Promodis, vol. 1, pp. 255–77. [Google Scholar]
  503. Zilhão, Isabel. 2014. The rise and fall of science for all: Science for children voiced by a Portuguese daily newspaper (1924–1933). History of Science 52: 454–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  504. Zilhão, Isabel. 2021. A divulgação da ciência, da tecnologia e da medicina no Diário de Notícias (1900–1925). In Ciência tecnologia e Medicina na construção de Portugal. Inovação e Contestação-Séc-XX. Coordinated by Maria P. Diogo and Ana Simões. Lisboa: Tinta da China, vol. 4, pp. 93–118. [Google Scholar]
  505. Ziman, John M. 1969. Information, Communication, Knowledge. Nature 224: 318–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  506. Zimmerman, Jonathan. 2009. Where the Customer is King: The Textbook in American Culture. In A History of the Book in America. Directed by David D. Hall. Chapel Hill: American Antiquarian Society and University of North Carolina Press, vol. V, pp. 304–24. [Google Scholar]
  507. Zuckerman, Harriet, and Robert K. Merton. 1971. Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System. Minerva 9: 66–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  508. Zuckerman, Harriet. 1967. Nobel Laureates in Science: Patterns of Productivity, Collaboration and Authorship. American Sociological Review 32: 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  509. Zuckerman, Harriet. 1977. Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New York: The Free Press. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Simon, J. Scientific Publishing: Agents, Genres, Technique and the Making of Knowledge. Histories 2022, 2, 516-541. https://doi.org/10.3390/histories2040035

AMA Style

Simon J. Scientific Publishing: Agents, Genres, Technique and the Making of Knowledge. Histories. 2022; 2(4):516-541. https://doi.org/10.3390/histories2040035

Chicago/Turabian Style

Simon, Josep. 2022. "Scientific Publishing: Agents, Genres, Technique and the Making of Knowledge" Histories 2, no. 4: 516-541. https://doi.org/10.3390/histories2040035

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop