The appearance of the Philosophical Transactions in 1665 marked the emergence of scientific journals as the dominant mode for dissemination of research and discoveries. The journal system served numerous fundamental needs within the scientific community and encouraged a climate of increased sharing of knowledge. As the rhetoric of scientific discourse evolved over time, a highly stable format emerged to govern the research article as a genre. In the contemporary era of networked science, however, informal scientific communication is also growing in importance as researchers turn to online collaborative tools for even more rapid sharing of results and work in progress.

1. SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNICATION
BEFORE AND AFTER
NETWORKED SCIENCE
John Carey, AHIP
METRO Scientific, Technical and
Medical Librarians SIG
May 13, 2014

2. Before and After. . . .
“To
historians . . .
there will be two
eras of science:
pre-network
science, and
networked
science.”
--M. Nielsen
2

3. Pre-Network Science
3
 Rise of the scientific journal
 Scientific Method
 Growth of modern science
 Rhetoric of scientific discourse

4. Networked Science
“Open
science”
“Open
notebook
science”
“E-
Science”
4

5. Rise of the Journal
First issue
of the
Philo so phic
al
Transactio
ns o f the
Ro yal
So cie ty,
1667
5

6. Secrecy vs Sharing
 Disseminated via
networking
 Research mainly
published in book
form
 Guarded
environment
(anagrams and
ciphers)
 Disseminated via
publication
 Rapid articles, not
books
 Patrons, govt
subsidies that
rewarded
publication
Before Journals AfterJournals
6

7. The Gentleman Scientist
7

8. Author-Centered Discourse
 First person
narrative
 Elaborate politeness
 May address misc
subjects
 Purely descriptive
 Chronological order
 May name
witnesses
8
Epistolary Experimental Report

9. Functions of Journals
 1. Building a knowledge base
 2. Communicating information
 3. Validating quality
 4. Distributing rewards/recognition
 5. Building community
9

10. Big Science
10

11. Growth of Modern Science
 Spread of scientific method, professionalized
class of researchers
 Government interest, especially post-WWII
 R&D in the USA: 1923, $15 million/year; 2005,
$132 billion/year*
 “Seismic” events:
 End of cold war
 Advent of electronic communications
 Globalized business environment
Carol S. Wagner, The Ne w Invisible Co lle g e : Scie nce fo r De ve lo pm e nt (Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution, 2008), p. 15.
11

12. Object-Centered Discourse
12
 Evolved from earlier “experimental reports”
 Theory – experiment – discussion
 “Agentless”—emphasis on methodology,
conduct of experiment
 Standardization of parts—any competent
observer can replicate

13. IMRaD Format
13

14. Contemporary Science
 More frequently interdisciplinary in nature—
increased emphasis on collaboration (“team
science”)
 More data-intensive, large datasets
 Increasingly geographically distributed, teams
based on interests/expertise
 Communication times reduced, discovery
speeded up
14

15. New Tools, Same Functions
 Formal: Books &
journal articles
(print, subscription-
based)
 Informal: letters,
meetings, societies,
etc.
 Formal: journal
articles (digital,
often OA and CC)
 Informal: Blogs,
wikis, social media
Pre-NetworkScience Networked Science
15

16. 16

17. Recognition and Reward
How to
measure
the
scholarly
impact of
blogs,
online
slides,
tweets,
etc.?
(Altmetric;
Impact Story)
17

18. A Genre Playing Catch-Up?
“Despite the much-discussed shift of
scientific journals to digital form, virtually
any article appearing in one of these
journals would be comfortably familiar (as a
literary genre) to a scientist from 1900.”
–Clifford Lynch
Clifford A. Lynch, “The Shape of the Scientific Article in the Developing Cyberinfrastructure,” CT
Watch Quarte rly 3, no. 3 (2007), p. 5.
18

19. The “Article of the Future”
Despite
non-linear
layout and
interactive
features,
still retains
underlying
IMRaD
structure
(Elsevier,
Ce ll)
19

20. The Progress of Networked
Science
2010 Survey respondents:
Works in progress: 50% sharing with private
network, 25% openly with research community
Data: 40% sharing with private network, 20%
openly with research community
Varies with: discipline, generation/career status
Research Information Network, “If You Build It, Will they Come? How Researchers Perceive and
Use Web 2.0,” July, 2010. Accessed June 18, 2012, http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-
and-disseminating-research/use-and-relevance-web-20-researchers
20

21. Challenges Real or Perceived
2010 Survey respondents:
Blogs, wikis, online notebooks ranked low in
importance
Online preprints average or high importance
No bias against OA
Concerns: peer review, quality assurance
Research Information Network, “If You Build It, Will they Come? How Researchers Perceive and
Use Web 2.0,” July, 2010. Accessed June 18, 2012, http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-
and-disseminating-research/use-and-relevance-web-20-researchers
21

22. Image Credits
 Slide 2: © 2012, Princeton University Press.
 Slide 5: Portrait of Francis Bacon, by Frans Pourbus (1617), Palace on the
Water, Warsaw; Portrait of Josiah Meigs © University of Georgia Libraries
 Slide 8: The Bancroft Library, © 2013 Regents of the University of California
 Slide 10: Portfolio Piece 1, © 2012 Chris 5353, “Just another
WordPress.com site,” http://chris5353.wordpress.com/
 Slide 11: “Networked Science,” EMC+ © 2012,
http://emcplus.emc.com/2012/03/networked-science.html
Based on:
Carey, J. (2013). Scientific communication before and after networked
science. Info rm atio n and Culture : AJo urnalo f Histo ry 48(3), 344-367.
22