A new scientific journal takes the scene: The birth of reviews of modern physics

Lalli, Roberto

doi:10.1002/andp.201400810

Cited by 9 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 1929 Tate advocated the establishment of what was later called Reviews of Modern Physics-a new journal entirely dedicated to the publication of reviews of recent work in various fields of physics, which would become a dominant publication venue in physics from the 1930s onwards. 28 Recognizing that speed of publication was becoming a pressing requirement for the increasing American physics community, which was in fierce competition with European physicists, in July 1929 Tate began publishing a new section of Physical Review entitled 'Letters to the Editors', probably inspired by the success of correspondence columns in British scientific journals such as Nature and Philosophical Magazine. 29 When Tate officially announced the establishment of this section, he stated that accepted communications would be published within two weeks from the submission date, although this promise was not always fulfilled.…”

Section: Structural Changes In Physical Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Dirty work’, but someone has to do it: Howard P. Robertson and the refereeing practices of Physical Review in the 1930s

Lalli

2016

Notes Rec.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 1930s the mathematical physicist Howard P. Robertson was the main referee of the journal Physical Review for papers concerning general relativity and related subjects. The rich correspondence between Robertson and the editors of the journal enables a historical investigation of the refereeing process of Physical Review at the time that it was becoming one of the most influential physics periodicals in the world. By focusing on this case study, the paper investigates two complementary aspects of the evolution of the refereeing process: first, the historical evolution of the refereeing practices in connection with broader contextual changes, and second, the attempts to define the activity of the referee, including the epistemic virtues required and the journal's functions according to the participants' categories. By exploring the tension between Robertson's idealized picture about how the referee should behave and the desire to promote his intellectual agenda, I show that the evaluation criteria that Robertson employed were contextually dependent and I argue that, in the 1930s, through his reports the referee had an enormous power in defining what direction future research should take.

show abstract

Section: Structural Changes In Physical Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%