Scientific Publishing: Agents, Genres, Technique and the Making of Knowledge
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This (brief) paper aims to be a “vademecum” for readers, particularly historians, who are interested in learning more about the history of publishing in a variety of scientific fields. It opens with an overview of the relationship between science and publishing while also highlighting the complexity of studying the links between these two areas. The author then moves to a consideration of how a materially oriented focus on the production and circulation of print objects can enhance research in a variety of scientific disciplines. Using the scientific revolution as a jumping off point for their analysis of the publishing industry and scientific inquiry, the author discusses the importance of considering the production, circulation, and ultimate reception of scientific treatises in order to truly understand their impact and role in a given historical moment. From here, the author provides a brief discussion of theoretical approaches to the publishing industry (Darnton, Chartier, Fleck, Kuhn), and then takes a closer look at a series of foundational theorists and their texts in the history of scientific publishing: Ludwik Fleck (1930s); Thomas S. Kuhn (1960s); Paul Forman (1970s); and Rudolf Stiechweh (1980s). They conclude by pointing to more recent advances in digital technology (the Science in Nineteenth-Century Periodical Index) that have aided in research surrounding the publishing of academic science journals.
While the thesis of the article is an important one, there are two major issues with the paper. First, and most importantly, is the lack of breath and depth. In other words, this article appears to summarize the thoughts of one or two (dated) works, rather than offering a concise overview of the history of science publishing up to the present (as the author’s thesis suggests that they will do). A good model for how to structure and organize this type of “state of the field” piece is G. Thomas Tanselle’s “Notes on Recent Work in Descriptive Bibliography” (Studies in Bibliography 60 [2018]: 1–93). In tandem with this issue is the fact that several claims lack the necessary evidence to support them. For example, the author comments on the importance of Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolution (1960) and states that this work “became a best-seller across the social sciences” (page 3 line 117), yet there is no cited source for this claim. How many copies of this work sold? What types of readers bought them and how were they used? Was this work considered a best-seller in the same sense as works of fiction? Another claim that lacks support comes from this same discussion of Kuhn’s work when the author states that “textbook narratives clearly falsified the actual logic of scientific research in favor of instructional coherence” (page 3 lines 125–26). It is also unclear if Kuhn’s work—or the current author’s work for that matter—has a specific geographical interest. The author states that their vademecum will provide historians/readers with an understanding of the “global role of publishing science,” but I find it hard to believe that Kuhn’s work was a best-seller in every country during the 1960s. In fact, as is shown in the author’s focus on Stichweh and scientific journals, the main region of interest appears to be Europe and the UK (specifically “France, Germany and Britain [page 4 line 155]). Similarly, when describing digital resources that have aided in the research of scientific journals, the author notes how these tools focus on material from “UK, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Greece and Spain” (page 4 line 185).
Second is the dearth of recent scholarly literature on the topic. More precisely, there are only three sources cited from the last five years (Csiszar; Gielas and Fyfe; and Valleriani and Ottone). At one point, the author even describes a source that dates from 1990 as “[contemporary]” (page 4 line 169). While the history of publishing in science is not as well studied as other fields in the publishing industry (say, for instance, English literature), there is a fair amount of recent scholarship that the author needs to engage with. For instance, the most recent special issue of History of Science (vol. 60, no. 2, June 2022) has several articles that relate to the topic at hand (especially Bettina Dietz’s “Towards a History of Scientific Publishing”); The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain and The Cambridge Companion to the History of the Book have several chapters by Adrian Johns on science publishing; the recent book Information: A Historical Companion has a section on “Manuals” by Pamela O. Long that pertains to the subject; and much of Anthony Grafton’s work (especially his most recent book, Inky Fingers [2020]) is crucial for the history of the book and science publishing.
Apart from these issues, there are a few stylistic issues with the article. In particular, some of the language is repetitive, vague, and often not precise. The writing is choppy and fragmented in some parts (e.g., page 1 lines 21–22), and long and unwieldy in others (e.g., page 2 lines 82–87).
Author Response
I am very grateful to Reviewer 1 for his/her extensive and insightful comments on my essay paper. I have tried to deal with all the critical comments and suggestions provided. In the following, I provided responses and explanations on the changes introduced in the paper.
1. Reviewer 1: “In other words, this article appears to summarize the thoughts of one or two (dated) works, rather than offering a concise overview of the history of science publishing up to the present (as the author’s thesis suggests that they will do). A good model for how to structure and organize this type of “state of the field” piece is G. Thomas Tanselle’s “Notes on Recent Work in Descriptive Bibliography” (Studies in Bibliography 60 [2018]: 1–93).”
- I have read with interest Tanselle’s paper and have also gone back to some previous classic historiographical review papers on the topic of my essay (e.g. Jonathan R. Topham’s «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, 4 (2000): 559-612, and Adrian John’s «Science and the Book in Modern Cultural Historiography». Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 29, 1 (1998): 167-94.
I agree on the required improvement of my essay in these lines, and I have accordingly increased my references to more – and more recent – works in the field. I was especially restricted by the length requirements of the essay (according to the special issue editors), which should be limited to maximum 24.000 characters (bibliography and footnotes excluded), that is approximately 3500-4500 words. Tanselle, Topham and Johns had between 5 and 10 times more space to develop their reviews.
Nonetheless, many of the weaknesses of the first version of the essay were mainly due to my lack of time to finalize the piece.
I have expanded considerably the literature coverage in terms of international and period breadth.
I hope my revised version is now fit for publication.
2. Reviewer 1: “In tandem with this issue is the fact that several claims lack the necessary evidence to support them. For example, the author comments on the importance of Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolution (1960) and states that this work “became a bestseller across the social sciences” (page 3 line 117), yet there is no cited source for this claim. How many copies of this work sold? What types of readers bought them and how were they used? Was this work considered a best-seller in the same sense as works of fiction?” - “Another claim that lacks support comes from this same discussion of Kuhn’s work when the author states that “textbook narratives clearly falsified the actual logic of scientific research in favor of instructional coherence” (page 3 lines 125–26)”
This is a very thoughtful meta-remark, indeed. I have accordingly introduced some references in support of this claim, and in addition, I have somewhat softened it.
My claim is mainly based on qualitative professional experience. Alas, there are currently no in-depth works on the book and reading history of Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. However, a series of recent publications connected to its 50th anniversary provide some (although still sparse) evidence of its impact. Some authors have for instance gathered that it was “judged by the Times Literary Supplement to be among the twenty most influential books published in the second half of the twentieth century”. Kuhn’s book combined history, sociology, philosophy and anthropology, it gave a major role both to research and education, and proposed intriguing and powerful concepts such as that of (scientific) paradigm and (knowledge) incommesurability. It has therefore interested various communities connected with at least the aforementioned knowledge fields. Its success is obviously historically contingent and it should be problematized and studied with a book history perspective – but hitherto no one has done so (and there is no enough space in the length of this essay to develop more fully an investigation on this book in particular). Of course, its relative impact is likely to be different in different disciplinary and national communities. However, in my experience, if there is one history of science book known to scholars outside the field (in the social sciences, humanities, various historical specialisms, the sciences and engineering) it is Kuhn’s. In addition, this is useful for this essay because of the emphasis of Kuhn’s book on the role of textbooks in the making of science. This is my perspective from my major specialism (history of science), however I am particularly conscious of the narrowness of disciplinary outlooks and am sure that this might be perceived differently from other specialisms in History. Of course, I am also happy to hear from other historians and consider other options of history of science works which might have had a relevant impact beyond their immediate field of specialization.
The second claim included in the headline of this section is not mine but Kuhn’s. I see this distinction was not clear, thus, I have specified it in the revised text.
3. Geographical focus: Several comments of Reviewer 1, seem to indicate that a wider geographical focus would be interesting.
I understand that the first version of my piece was rather Eurocentric. I have now expanded my literature coverage (with reference to Latin America and Asia, and literature in several languages: English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese)
4. Reviewer 1: “dearth of recent scholarly literature on the topic”
I agree. My main effort of extending my revised essay goes in the line of offering more detail on recent literature. I have included many of the references suggested by Reviewer 1. Thank you. In addition, in certain cases I might give priority to some literature that I consider classic or methodologically strong, independently of its date of publication.
5. Writing:
I have tried to improve writing across the essay and especially in the passages suggested by Reviewer 1.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall this is an excellent overview of this topic. I do think that the author could develop the discussion toward the end of the essay more. It seems to suddenly end more abruptly than necessary without fully explaining some of the issues raised near the end. For example, important recent books such as those by Baldwin and Csiszar are very briefly mentioned near the end, but their ideas are not engaged very extensively, and I believe that readers could benefit from a more thorough discussion of these and other works. More broadly, I think the essay is light on details about the most recent works in this topical area, and more could be said about the current directions and themes in this area of study. In addition, more could be said about scientific publishing in specific national contexts for which we have especially strong scholarly studies, most notably Britain but also others. Finally, if something more could be added on publishing outside the western world, or in colonial and postcolonial contexts, even if brief, that could add to the quality of the article.
Many of the works that I am most familiar with in this area of study were cited and discussed, but a few other possibilities potentially worthy of inclusion are:
Andrews, James T. Science for the Masses: The Bolshevik State, Public Science, and the Popular Imagination in Soviet Russia, 1917-1934. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2003.
Dennis, Joseph. Writing, Publishing, and Reading Local Gazetteers in Imperial China, 1100-1700. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2015.
Fyfe, Aileen. Steam-Powered Knowledge: William Chambers and the Business of Publishing, 1820-1860. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. (and/or her earlier work, Science and Salvation)
Gross, Alan G., Joseph E. Harmon, and Michael Reidy. Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Lightman, Bernard. Victorian Popularizers of Science: Designing Nature for New Audiences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Phillips, Denise. Acolytes of Nature: Defining Natural Science in Germany, 1770-1850. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.
Singh, Charu. "The Shastri and the Air-Pump: Experimental Fictions and Fictions of Experiment for Hindi Readers in Colonial North India." History of Science 60, no. 2 (2022): 232-54.
Author Response
I am very grateful to Reviewer 2 for his/her appreciation of the essay and the constructive and detailed comments and suggestions provided. I am making use of them in my revision following two main lines which I specify below:
1. Reviewer 2: “More broadly, I think the essay is light on details about the most recent works in this topical area, and more could be said about the current directions and themes in this area of study.”
I agree with this and with the fact that the essay ends somewhat abruptly. The piece was limited by a requirement (specified by the special issue editors) of 24.000 characters (bibliography and footnotes excluded), that is approximately 3500-4500 words. I am though rewriting several parts of the essay to make them more concise and extending it. I have expanded it now considerably to include more detail on main trends, and a much wider coverage in terms of time period (early modern to contemporary) and geography (Europe, USA, Latin America, Asia).
I agree my first version was insufficient; I didn’t have enough time to finalize it. I hope my reworked version is fit for publication.
2. Reviewer 2: Geographical focus
My review wass indeed narrow in its geographical and national focus. I thank the reviewer for pinpointing this and offering a wide range of suggestions to expand my literature coverage. I have checked the list provided, and some more literature and incorporated into my writing a selection. In some instances I provide reference to reference works (handbooks, companions, enciclopedias, …) which contain more extensive review essays providing a more extensive list of further reading.
Reviewer 3 Report
I find is discomforting to see such an almost exclusive focus on English literature. If reference is made to Geman journals, for instance, it would be appropriate to quote the abundant German-language scholarship in the field, starting, for instance, with Martin Gierl or Holger Böhning and including many others.
Author Response
I am very grateful to Reviewer 3 for his/her comment on the paper.
1. Reviewer 3: “I find is discomforting to see such an almost exclusive focus on English literature. If reference is made to Geman journals, for instance, it would be appropriate to quote the abundant German language scholarship in the field, starting, for instance, with Martin Gierl or Holger Böhning and including many others.”
I agree that the essay was rather biased towards British and Anglo-American literature in the field. I thank you for pointing this out and apologize for that. I did not have enough time to finalize the first version of my article. I have now expanded the article considerably and provide both an extensive time period (early modern to contemporary) and geographical coverage (Europe, Latin America, Asia). Moreover, I include scholarly literature in English, German, French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. In some instances I have provided reference to reference works (handbooks, companions, enciclopedias, …) which contain more extensive review essays providing a more extensive list of further reading.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
While I appreciate all of the changes and work that has gone into this revision, several fundamental aspects are still unclear. Above all, I’m not quite sure what the distinction is between “the history of scientific publishing” and “the history of publishing” (or the history of the book) in more general terms. Is the history of scientific publishing not a part of the history of publishing? Broadly speaking, in its first instantiation as an academic field of study, bibliography (of the study of books and their creation) was considered a scientific method of study. As such, one of my main questions becomes how is scientific publishing distinct from the general history of publishing? As a corollary to this point, I am still left wondering what the unique contribution of this article is to the field. Perhaps part of the problems is that the article attempts to cover too much ground and lacks a pointed, specific thesis.
Some minor linguistic issues:
-p. 1, line 7: “has been one of the most topical”
-p. 6, line 287: “space for matters of book history”
-p. 7, line 305: change “composed by” to “composed of”
-p. 7, lines 313–14: delete “already”
-p. 7, lines 326–27: rewrite the beginning of this sentence (“We have already…”) to be more clear
-p. 7, line 345: “perspectives” (plural)
-p. 8, line 352: delete “already”
-p. 8, line 360: remove the accent from the “p” in “readership”
-p. 8, line 384: change “interest on” to “interest in”
Author Response
This paper is a contribution commissioned for the special issue "(New) Histories of Science, in and beyond Modern Europe" (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/histories/special_issues/histories_of_science). It is a review paper and addresses the aim of presenting trends in the history of science to historians from other specialisms (e.g. book history). Reciprocally, it also has the aim of presenting trends in book history to historians of science.
The history of scientific publishing is part of the history of publishing (or book history). It is also part of the history of science. A major point addressed by this paper is that a proper analytical focus on books is not often present within the history of science. Viceversa, a proper analytical focus on science is not often present within book history. Conversely, when this cross-disciplinary focus has been applied in these two disciplines, respectively, a rich intellectual production has been developed. The paper is a call to deepen this interdisciplinary approach. As a review paper, it provides a good number of illustrative examples that precisely do that.
It characterizes the field and its major contributions by pinpointing its principal research objects and approaches. For instance, a focus on the making of disciplinary knowledge, the stress on practical and theoretical arrangements for the management of knowledge, on peer-review, and on journals as tools of specialization are particularly characteristic of the history of scientific publishing and, I think, are not found (at least with this intensity) in other fields within book history. The field has also a major focus on textbooks, which, peculiarly enough, is in certain ways even greater than that found within the history of education or in book history at large. Its study of the material culture of print is particular in establishing connections with the study of the material culture of experiment. Its analysis of writing is mediated by a particular focus on the analysis of discovery and invention as intellectual practices. These are examples of the specificity of scientific publishing in comparison with other types of publishing.
I agree that the paper's breadth might go against a precise and more clear exposition of the paper's argument. A review paper presents often this tension. However, as pinpointed above, the paper has a clear central aim of promoting a dialogue between the history of science and book history (this dialogue exists, but is insufficient) aligned with the aims of the special issue to which it is connected. Furthermore, it also explains and exemplifies a good number of ways in which the history of scientific publishing has special focuses, objects and approaches.
Reviewer 3 Report
The scope of the paper has been vastly expanded and the depth of the research surveyed has been much increased. Also, the cross-cultural dimension is much stronger now. Nevertheless, I still fail to see where the paper's heading to and what's the main purpose of it really is (I mentioned this in my previous review to the editors). As of now, this reads like a review essay or state-of-the-art-introduction to a compendium - if that's what it's meant to be, fine. But read as a research article, I would find it devoid of research questions and a clear argumentation.
Author Response
This paper is indeed a review paper. It is a contribution commissioned for the special issue "(New) Histories of Science, in and beyond Modern Europe" (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/histories/special_issues/histories_of_science). It is a review paper and following the special issue editors request, it addresses the aim of presenting trends in the history of science to historians from other specialisms (e.g. book history). Reciprocally, it also has the aim of presenting trends in book history to historians of science.
I agree that the breadth and review style of the paper makes it less focused on argument than a research article. This should perhaps have been clarified since the beginning of the review process. I thought the editors might have done this.
A major point addressed by this paper is that a proper analytical focus on books is not often present within the history of science. Viceversa, a proper analytical focus on science is not often present within book history. Conversely, when this cross-disciplinary focus has been applied in these two disciplines, respectively, a rich intellectual production has been developed. The paper is a call to deepen this interdisciplinary approach. As a review paper, it provides a good number of illustrative examples that precisely do that.
It characterizes the field and its major contributions by pinpointing its principal research objects and approaches. For instance, a focus on the making of disciplinary knowledge, the stress on practical and theoretical arrangements for the management of knowledge, on peer-review, and on journals as tools of specialization are particularly characteristic of the history of scientific publishing and, I think, are not found (at least with this intensity) in other fields within book history. The field has also a major focus on textbooks, which, peculiarly enough, is in certain ways even greater than that found within the history of education or in book history at large. Its study of the material culture of print is particular in establishing connections with the study of the material culture of experiment. Its analysis of writing is mediated by a particular focus on the analysis of discovery and invention as intellectual practices. These are examples of the specificity of scientific publishing in comparison with other types of publishing. But, as I have mentioned above, the main aim of the paper is to further the dialogue between several historical specialisms (especially history of science and book history).
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
none
