Publish versus unpublished: The role of science journal publishing in priority disputes, c.1850–c.1950



 6th International Conference of European Society of History of Science, Lisbon, Portugal, 4–6 September 2014

Session on:
Publish versus unpublished: The role of science journal publishing in priority disputes, c.1850–c.1950
Session Abstract

The focus in this session is on late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century examples of claims to priority and on the role of the published record in these disputes. Historians of science have considered the reasons why one individual is credited with a discovery over another. We know that scientific disputes were often determined less by the actual timescale of events (who did what first) and more by the proof individuals possessed of their pioneering work, namely in the form of the published record. For example, in the discovery of Neptune in 1846, Cambridge astronomers lost out to their German contemporaries. Smith (1989) has shown that the former’s claims to be the first observers of the planet were disputed, in part, owing to the limited evidence they possessed in print.

The purpose of this session is to think more about claims to priority in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and, specifically, how and why some testimonies were seen as more valid than others. Why were certain forms of print more effective in securing ownership of an idea or discovery? Did private notes and correspondence stand up against published knowledge in scientific controversies? Were there distinctions in the worth assigned to declarations in journals, magazines and newspapers? These are some of the questions addressed in this session

Main themes
  • How and why did publishing assist in staking possession of a discovery? How were different types of periodicals (including newspapers and magazines) called into play in priority disputes, and how did this change over time?
  • What types of non-public modes of communication could compete with publication for establishing priority, and how did this change over time? What ethical issues surrounded the sharing of data between colleagues? 
  • How was the issue of priority settled? When there were challenges to priority who won and why?
  • Why did scientists publish when they did? How did they negotiate the problem of making their work public too late or too early?
This session comes out of work on the AHRC funded project ‘Publishing the Philosophical Transactions: the social, cultural and economic history of a learned journal, 1665-2015’, with the University of St-Andrews and the Royal Society of London. Offers of papers, including a 250-word abstract, should be sent by the 15th November 2013 to Dr Julie McDougall-Waters, jm281@st-andrews.ac.uk
------------------------
Dr Julie McDougall-Waters
Research Fellow at the University of St. Andrews

Centre for the History of Science
Royal Society of London
6–9 Carlton House Terrace
London
SW1Y 5AG