Conservative attitudes to old-established organs: Oliver Lodge and Philosophical Magazine

Abstract

In 1921 Oliver Lodge defended Philosophical Magazine against charges of mismanagement from the National Union of Scientific Workers. They alleged that its editors performed little editorial work, the bulk being done by the publishers, Taylor & Francis. Lodge reassured Nature's readers that the journal did consult its editors, and suggested ‘a conservative attitude towards old-established organs is wise; and that it is possible to over-organise things into lifelessness.’ The paper explores Lodge's response by considering the editorial arrangements at Philosophical Magazine . Founded in 1798, it remained remarkably unchanged and so appeared old-fashioned when compared with its closest rivals, Proceedings of the Royal Society and Proceedings of the Physical Society . We argue that for Lodge the management of Philosophical Magazine gave it the flexibility and independence required to sustain the kind of physics, also open to accusations of obsolescence, in which he believed.

Managing the Growth of Peer Review at the Royal Society Journals, 1865-1965

“…The period available for analysis begins in 1865. At this time, refereeing was a well-established practice at the Royal Society and some similar societies (Newman 2019), but it was rarely used by nonsociety journals or any journal where speed of publication was prioritized (Clarke 2015; Clarke and Mussell 2015; Baldwin 2015). By 1965, the practice of reviewing had become much more widespread among scholarly journals, including those published by new players in the market such as Pergamon and Elsevier.…”

Peer review – issues, limitations, and future development

“…Another example is one from almost a century ago: Oliver Lodge, editor of the Philosophical Magazine, described a 1924 submission by Felix Ehrenhaft as "either badly written or badly translated" and almost certainly incorrect from a scientific perspective. But he agreed that it ought to be inserted in the journal [12]. His motivation is likely to have been similar to the motivation of the reviewer in the first example: it may not be correct, but it is worth discussing in the community.…”