The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Modern Evolution of the Experimental Report in Physics: Spectroscopic Articles in Physical Review, 1893-1980
Abstract
Recent studies of scientific texts need to be set against the history of the genre, which in part establishes the institutional framework within which any individual text is created. The definition of the appropriate form of communication is part of how a discipline constitutes itself, and is part of the achievement of that discipline. This paper examines the changing features of spectroscopic articles in Physical Review since its founding. Analyses of article length, use of references, sentence length and syntax, vocabulary, graphic features, organization and argument indicate that articles become increasingly theory-based and knowledge-embedded through time. Self-consciousness about the theoretical character of argument also increases. The changing character of communication within a scientific community also has implications for the social structure of that community.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“We also need to grant that stance, like other features of disciplinary discourses, are not static and unchanging markers of professional research writing.”
From Change of Attitude? A Diachronic Study of Stance (2016) · cites this paper as Bazerman, 1984
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814358 · Cited by 2,126
Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction
Mayer, R. E., & Alexander, P. A. (2011) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203839089 · Cited by 969
Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse
Salager‐Meyer, F. (1994) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/0889-4906(94)90013-2 · Cited by 699
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108686136 · Cited by 682
Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing
Pecorari, D. (2003) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.004 · Cited by 512
Metadata
- Authors
- Bazerman, C.
- Affiliations
- Baruch College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bazerman, Charles
- ORCID
- Bazerman, Charles
- Venue
- Social Studies of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1984-05
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 163-196
- ISSN
- 0036-8539 (ISSN-L)
- 0306-3127
- 1460-3659
- OpenAlex
- W2061706012
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 33.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Studies of Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › History of Science and Medicine
- Keywords
- laboratory reports, scientific writing, spectroscopy, Physical Review, history of science communication, disciplinary formation, citation practices
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.