The gatekeepers of modern physics: Periodicals and peer review in 1920s Britain

ISIS

Volumn 106, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 70-93

  Clarke, Imogen ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HISTORY; PEER REVIEW; PHYSICS; PUBLICATION; UNITED KINGDOM;

GREAT BRITAIN; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PHYSICS;

EID: 84926356413     PISSN: 00211753     EISSN: 15456994     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/681037     Document Type: Article

References (153)

1. Fiona Godlee and Tom Jefferson, eds., Peer Review in Health Sciences, 2nd ed. (London: Wiley, 2003), p. xiii.
2. This critical approach to peer review can be seen in many of the articles cited below. The International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publications is now in its seventh year.
3. T. Jefferson, P. Alderson, E. Wager, and F. Davidoff, "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review," Journal of the American Medical Association, 2002, 287:2784 -2786.
4. "Nature's Peer Review Debate," http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html, 2013 (accessed 1 Sept. 2013)
5. R. W. Smith, "In Search of an Optimal Peer Review System," Journal of Participatory Medicine, 2009, 1. In addition to removing the anonymity of reviewers, Smith argues that peer review should take place in an open online environment that would allow anybody to read and comment on both the paper and the reviews.
6. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, The Reviews into the Univ. of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit's E-mails: First Report of Session 2010-11 (London: Stationery Office, 25 Jan. 2011), p. 25.
7. John C. Burnham, "The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review," J. Amer. Med. Assoc., 1990, 263:1323-1329.
8. Burnham, "How Journal Editors Came to Develop and Critique Peer Review Procedures," in Research Ethics, Manuscript Review, and Journal Quality, ed. Henry R. Mayland and R. E. Sojka (Madison, Wis.: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, 1992), pp. 55-62.
9. Drummond Rennie, "Editorial Peer Review: Its Development and Rationale," in Peer Review in Health Sciences, ed. Godlee and Jefferson, pp. 3-13.
10. Mario Biagioli, "From Book Censorship to Academic Peer Review," Emergence, 2002, 12:11- 45.
11. Ruth Barton, "Just before Nature: The Purposes of Science and the Purposes of Popularization in Some English Popular Science Journals of the 1860s," Annals of Science, 1998, 55:1-33.
12. Aileen Fyfe, Science and Salvation: Evangelical Popular Science Publishing in Victorian Britain (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2004).
13. Bernard Lightman, Victorian Popularizers of Science: Designing Nature for New Audiences (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2007).
14. James A. Secord, Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2000).
15. G. N. Cantor, ed., Science in the Nineteenth-Century Periodical: Reading the Magazine of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004).
16. Cantor and Sally Shuttleworth, eds., Science Serialized: Representations of the Sciences in Nineteenth-Century Periodicals (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004).
17. A. J. Meadows, Communication in Science (London: Butterworths, 1974), Ch. 3.
18. Meadows, ed., Development of Science Publishing in Europe (New York: Elsevier, 1980).
19. Thomas Broman, "Periodical Literature," in Books and the Sciences in History, ed. Marina Frasca-Spada and Nicholas Jardine (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000), pp. 225-238.
20. David McKitterick, ed., The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, Vol. 6: 1830-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009), pp. 443-474.
21. Alex Csiszar, "Seriality and the Search for Order: Scientific Print and Its Problems during the Late Nineteenth Century," History of Science, 2010, 48:399-434.
22. Csiszar, "Broken Pieces of Fact: The Scientific Periodical and the Politics of Search in Nineteenth-Century France and Britain" (Ph.D. diss., Harvard Univ., 2010).
23. Peter Bowler, Science for All: The Popularization of Science in Early Twentieth-Century Britain (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2009).
24. William H. Brock and Meadows, The Lamp of Learning: Two Centuries of Publishing at Taylor & Francis (London: Taylor & Francis, 1998)
25. Dwight Atkinson, Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975 (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1999), Ch. 2.
26. Adrian Johns, The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1998).
27. Johns, "Miscellaneous Methods: Authors, Societies, and Journals in Early Modern England," British Journal for the History of Science, 2000, 33:159 -186.
28. Dwight Atkinson, Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975 (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1999), Ch. 2.
29. Melinda Baldwin, "'Keeping in the Race': Physics, Publication Speed, and National Publishing Strategies in Nature, 1895-1939," Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 2014, 47:257-279.
30. Baldwin, "The Successors to the X Club? Late Victorian Naturalists and Nature, 1869-1900," in Victorian Scientific Naturalism: Community, Identity, Continuity, ed. Bernard Lightman and Gowan Dawson (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2014), pp. 288-308.
31. K. Barzilai-Nahon, "Gatekeeping: A Critical Review," Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2009, 43:1-79.
32. M. Hojat, J. S. Gonnella, and A. S. Caelleigh, "Impartial Judgment by the 'Gatekeepers' of Science: Fallibility and Accountability in the Peer Review Process," Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2003, 8:75-96
33. M. B. Kovera and B. D. McAuliff, "The Effects of Peer Review and Evidence Quality on Judge Evaluations of Psychological Science: Are Judges Effective Gatekeepers?" Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000, 85:574 -586.
34. See, e.g., Helge Kragh, Quantum Generations (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1999).
35. David M. Knight, Public Understanding of Science: A History of Communicating Scientific Ideas (London: Taylor & Francis, 2006), Ch. 12.
36. Laurie M. Brown, Abraham Pais, and Brian Pippard, Twentieth Century Physics, Vol. 1 (Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing; New York: American Institute of Physics Press, 1995)
37. Richard Staley, "On the Co-Creation of Classical and Modern Physics," Isis, 2005, 96:530 -558.
38. Staley, Einstein's Generation: The Origins of the Relativity Revolution (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2008).
39. Imogen Clarke, "Negotiating Progress: Promoting 'Modern' Physics in Britain, 1900-1940" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. Manchester, 2012).
40. Graeme Gooday and Daniel Mitchell, "Rethinking 'Classical Physics," in Oxford Handbook of the History of Physics, ed. Jed Z. Buchwald and Robert Fox (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2013), pp. 721-764.
41. See, e.g., Jed Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to Microphysics: Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory in the Last Quarter of the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1988).
42. Buchwald and Andrew Warwick, eds., Histories of the Electron: The Birth of Microphysics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001).
43. Olivier Darrigol, Electrodynamics from Ampère to Einstein (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000).
44. Jeff Hughes, "Radioactivity and Nuclear Physics," in The Cambridge History of Science, Vol. 5: The Modern Physical and Mathematical Sciences, ed. Mary Jo Nye (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002), pp. 350-374
45. Richard Staley, "Trajectories in the History and Historiography of Physics in the Twentieth Century," Hist. Sci., 2013, 51:151-177.
46. For Lodge see Bruce J. Hunt, The Maxwellians (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1991).
47. Peter Rowlands, Oliver Lodge and the Liverpool Physical Society (Liverpool: Liverpool Univ. Press, 1990).
48. David B. Wilson, "The Thought of Late Victorian Physicists: Oliver Lodge's Ethereal Body," Victorian Studies, 1971, 15:29-48.
49. E. A. Milne, Sir James Jeans: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1952).
50. Rob Hudson, "James Jeans and Radiation Theory," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 1989, 20:57-76.
51. Helge Kragh, "Resisting the Bohr Atom: The Early British Opposition," Physics in Perspective, 2011, 13:4 -35.
52. Dwight Atkinson, Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975 (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1999), Ch. 2.
53. For an uncritical, institutionally sponsored history of the Physical Society see John L. Lewis, 125 Years: The Physical Society and the Institute of Physics (Bristol: Institute of Physics, 1999).
54. Russell Moseley, "Tadpoles and Frogs: Some Aspects of the Professionalization of British Physics, 1870-1939," Social Studies of Science, 1977, 7:423- 446
55. Graeme Gooday, "Precision Measurement and the Genesis of Physics Teaching Laboratories in Victorian Britain" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. Kent, 1989), pp. 835- 851.
56. Jeff Hughes, "Plasticine and Valves: Industry, Instrumentation, and the Emergence of Nuclear Physics," in The Invisible Industrialist: Manufactures and the Production of Scientific Knowledge, ed. Jean-Paul Gaudillière and Ilana Löwy (London: Macmillan, 1998), pp. 58-101.
57. See Andrew Warwick, Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the Rise of Mathematical Physics (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2003).
58. Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics and Cavendish Physics: Cunningham, Campbell, and Einstein's Relativity, 1905-1911, Pt. 1: The Uses of Theory," Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. Pt. A, 1992, 23:625- 656.
59. Robert Fox and Graeme Gooday, eds., Physics in Oxford, 1839-1939 (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).
60. Romualdas Sviedrys, "The Rise of Physics Laboratories in Britain," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 1976, 7:405- 436.
61. Gooday, "Precision Measurement and the Genesis of Physics Teaching Laboratories in Victorian Britain," Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 1990, 23:25-51.
62. Gooday, "Precision Measurement and the Genesis of Physics Teaching Laboratories in Victorian Britain" (Ph.D. diss.).
63. Gooday, "Precision Measurement and the Genesis of Physics Teaching Laboratories in Victorian Britain" (Ph.D. diss.), pp. 835- 851.
64. Alex Csiszar, "Seriality and the Search for Order: Scientific Print and Its Problems during the Late Nineteenth Century," History of Science, 2010, 48:399-434.
65. William H. Brock and Meadows, The Lamp of Learning: Two Centuries of Publishing at Taylor & Francis (London: Taylor & Francis, 1998)
66. Jeans's work was praised in Ernest Rutherford, "Address of the President, Sir Ernest Rutherford, O.M., at the Anniversary Meeting, November 30, 1927," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Part A, 1928, 117:300 -316.
67. Jeff Hughes, "'Divine Right' or Democracy? The Royal Society 'Revolt' of 1935," Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 2010, 64(Suppl. 1):S101-S117.
68. Brock and Meadows, Lamp of Learning.
69. Ernest Rutherford, "The Scattering of Alpha and Beta Particles by Matter and the Structure of the Atom," Philosophical Magazine, 1911, 21:669-688.
70. For Lodge and the ether see Richard Noakes, "Ethers, Religion, and Politics in Late-Victorian Physics: Beyond the Wynne Thesis," Hist. Sci., 2005, 43:415- 455.
71. Stanley Goldberg, "In Defense of Ether: The British Response to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, 1905-1911," Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci., 1970, 2:89 -125.
72. G. N. Cantor and M. J. S. Hodge, Conceptions of Ether: Studies in the History of Ether Theories, 1740-1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981).
73. Oliver Lodge, "The 'Philosophical' Magazine," Nature, 1921, 108:12. The "referees" mentioned here are the editors. In the front pages of the Philosophical Magazine, they are listed as those whom the journal is "conducted by."
74. Joseph Larmor to John Joly, 6 Nov. 1910, Papers of John Joly, Manuscripts and Archives Research Library, Trinity College, Dublin.
75. Oliver Lodge, "On a Possible Means of Determining the Two Characteristic Constants of the Aether of Space," Phil. Mag., 1919, Ser. 6, 37:465- 471, esp. p. 471.
76. L. Silberstein, "The Recent Eclipse Results and Stokes-Planck's Aether," Phil. Mag., 1920, Ser. 6, 39:161-170.
77. Lodge, "Note on a Possible Structure for the Ether," Phil. Mag., pp. 170-174.
78. G. Green, "A Fluid Analogue for the Aether," Phil. Mag., pp. 651-659.
79. Lodge, "Ether, Light, and Matter," Phil. Mag., 1921, Ser. 6, 41:940 -943.
80. E. H. Synge, "A Definition of Simultaneity and the Aether," Phil. Mag., 1922, Ser. 6, 43:528 -531.
81. Douglas R. Hartree, "On the Propagation of Certain Types of Electromagnetic Waves," Phil. Mag., 1923, Ser. 6, 46:454-460.
82. A. Press, "Maxwell's Electromagnetic Aether and the Michelson- Morley Experiment," Phil. Mag., 1925, Ser. 6, 50:809-812.
83. D. Meksyn, "The Physical Form of Ether," Phil. Mag., 1927, Ser. 7, 4:272-300.
84. P. M. S. Blackett to Bragg, 8 Nov. 1937, Papers of Professor A. V. Hill, Churchill Archives Centre, University of Cambridge. Blackett turned down an offer of editorship on the grounds that the journal had "lost its great position that it used to hold and should still hold." He noted that in his view "the lack of an effective refereeing system was a serious disability."
85. J. J. Thomson to Anon., ca. 1935, Papers of Sir Joseph John Thomson, Department of Manuscripts and University Archives, Cambridge University Library. The recipient is presumably Taylor & Francis. Thomson wrote that unless the journal improved, he no longer wanted to be associated with it.
86. C. G. Darwin to Richardson, 29 Apr. 1924, Richardson Papers. Darwin noted that he read "practically no other papers" beyond those in the Philosophical Magazine, the Proceedings, the German Zeitschrift fur Physik, and the American Physical Review.
87. "Minute Books of the Physics and Chemistry/Physics Sectional Committee," Royal Society Archives, London (hereafter cited as Royal Society Archives).
88. Information about the members of the committee is taken from the "Minute Books of the Physics Sectional Committee," Royal Society Archives.
89. On Fowler's work with Rayleigh at the Royal College of Science see Hannah Gay, The History of Imperial College London, 1907-2007 (London: Imperial College Press, 2007). Many committee members worked for the military during World War I, but I have placed them in the nonacademic category only if they were also employed by the military in peacetime-e.g., Lyons and F. E. Smith.
90. Similar committees had first been established in the early days of the Society, but they were short-lived. Later, "Scientific Committees" were set up in 1838 but abolished in 1849. See Henry Lyons, Record of the Royal Society of London (London: Royal Society, 1940), pp. 102-103.
91. James Hopwood Jeans, Report on Radiation and the Quantum-Theory (London: "The Electrician" Printing & Publishing, 1914).
92. Geoffrey Gorham, "Planck's Principle and Jeans's Conversion," Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. Pt. A, 1991, 22:471- 497, esp. pp. 473-474.
93. Jeans to Richardson, 2 Jan. 1925, Richardson Papers; and Year Book of the Royal Society (cit. n. 30) (regarding Standing Order 43).
94. Similar committees had first been established in the early days of the Society, but they were short-lived. Later, "Scientific Committees" were set up in 1838 but abolished in 1849. See Henry Lyons, Record of the Royal Society of London (London: Royal Society, 1940), pp. 102-103.
95. Jeans to Richardson, 9 July 1925, Richardson Papers (he quotes Rutherford's covering letter as well as praising Fowler).
96. Rutherford's approach differed somewhat from that of his predecessor, J. J. Thomson. It was less mathematical (as the training of experimental physicists in Cambridge became distinct from the training of mathematicians) and dedicated to the study of microscopic particles themselves, rather than their relations with an ether, which was now of little interest experimentally. See John L. Heilbron, "The Scattering of α and β Particles and Rutherford's Atom," Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 1968, 4:247-307.
97. Isobel Falconer, "J. J. Thomson and 'Cavendish' Physics," in The Development of the Laboratory, ed. Frank A. J. L. James (London: Macmillan, 1989), pp. 104-117, esp. p. 109.
98. Jeans to Richardson, 21 Apr. 1925.
99. H. Weiss, "The Application of X-Rays to the Study of Alloys," Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Pt. A, 1925, 108:643- 654.
100. Jaume Navarro, "'A Dedicated Missionary': Charles Galton Darwin and the New Quantum Mechanics in Britain," Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 2009, 40:316 -326, on pp. 321, 320. The word "arbiters" is Navarro's, and there is no indication of contemporary usage.
101. For Eddington see Matthew Stanley, Practical Mystic (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2007).
102. A. V. Douglas, The Life of Arthur Stanley Eddington (London: Nelson, 1956).
103. Joseph Larmor, Aether and Matter: A development of the dynamical relations of the aether to material systems, on the basis of the atomic constitution of matter: Including a discussion of the influence of the Earth's motion on optical phenomena: Being an Adams Prize Essay in the Univ. of Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1900).
104. Kevin C. Knox and Richard Noakes, From Newton to Hawking: A History of Cambridge University's Lucasian Professors of Mathematics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).
105. Richard Hargreaves, Arithmetic (Oxford: Clarendon, 1901).
106. Warwick, Masters of Theory, pp. 515-516.
107. Helge Kragh, "The Vortex Atom: A Victorian Theory of Everything," Centaurus, 2002, 44:32-144, esp. p. 43.
108. Roger H. Stuewer, "Rutherford's Satellite Model of the Nucleus," Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 1986, 16:321-352.
109. Helge Kragh, "Resisting the Bohr Atom: The Early British Opposition," Physics in Perspective, 2011, 13:4 -35.
110. James Hopwood Jeans, Report on Radiation and the Quantum-Theory, 2nd ed. (London: Fleetway, 1924).
111. Jeans, "The Quantum Theory and New Theories of Atomic Structure," Journal of the Chemical Society: Transactions, 1919, 115:865- 871.
112. Hargreaves to Larmor, 4 Nov. 1920, Larmor Papers, Cambridge.
113. For Nicholson see W. Wilson, "John William Nicholson, 1881-1955," Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 1956, 2:209 -214.
114. Helge Kragh, Niels Bohr and the Quantum Atom (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).
115. Russell McCormmach, "The Atomic Theory of John William Nicholson," Arch. Hist. Exact Sci., 1966, 3:160 -184.
116. Helge Kragh, "Resisting the Bohr Atom: The Early British Opposition," Physics in Perspective, 2011, 13:4 -35.
117. McCormmach, "Atomic Theory of John William Nicholson," p. 160.
118. "R. Hargreaves Referee Report 1921" (No. 141), Royal Society Archives.
119. "R. Hargreaves Referee Report 1921" (No. 141), Royal Society Archives.
120. Jeans to Larmor, 17 Nov. 1921, Larmor Papers, Cambridge.
121. Jeans to Larmor, 27 Jan. 1922, Larmor Papers, Cambridge.
122. Larmor to Oliver Lodge, 12 Aug. 1922, Oliver Lodge Papers, University College, London, Special Collections (hereafter cited as Lodge Papers).
123. Lodge to Larmor, 15 Aug. 1922, Joseph Larmor Papers, Royal Society Archives (hereafter cited as Larmor Papers, Royal Society Archives).
124. Richard Hargreaves, "Atomic Systems Based on Free Electrons, Positive and Negative, and Their Stability," Phil. Mag., 1922, Ser. 6, 44:1065-1105 (see p. 1091 for Hargreaves's admission of ignorance regarding recent experimental results in physics).
125. "A Type of Ideal Electric Atoms," Nature, 1922, 110:873.
126. "Register of Papers," Royal Society Archives.
127. Larmor to Lodge, 4 Oct. 1922, Lodge Papers.
128. Much has been written about the eclipse expedition. See John Earman and Clark Glymour, "Relativity and Eclipses: The British Eclipse Expeditions of 1919 and Their Predecessors," Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci., 1980, 11:49-85.
129. Matthew Stanley, "An Expedition to Heal the Wounds of War: The 1919 Eclipse and Eddington as Quaker Adventurer," Isis, 2003, 94:57- 89.
130. Alistair Sponsel, "Constructing a 'Revolution in Science': The Campaign to Promote a Favourable Reception for the 1919 Solar Eclipse Experiments," Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 2002, 35:439-467.
131. Larmor's handwriting was "notoriously illegible": A. Rupert Hall, The Cambridge Philosophical Society: A History, 1819-1969 (Cambridge: Cambridge Philosophical Society, 1969), p. 74.
132. Arthur Stanley Eddington, "Joseph Larmor, 1857-1942," Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society, 1942, 4:197-207, on p. 205.
133. Joseph Larmor, "Einstein and Gravitation," Times [London], 17 Apr. 1923, p. 15.
134. Joseph Larmor, "On the Nature and Amount of the Gravitational Deflexion of Light," Phil. Mag., 1923, Ser. 6, 45:243-256.
135. "J. Larmor Referee Report 1922" (No. 147), Royal Society Archives.
136. Eddington refers to an earlier report, presumably removed from the records.
137. Matthew Stanley, "So Simple a Thing as a Star: The Eddington-Jeans Debate over Astrophysical Phenomenology," Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 2007, 40:53- 82. Stanley places Eddington in opposition to Jeans, who believed that a scientific method should be based on certainties.
138. Arthur Stanley Eddington, "Joseph Larmor, 1857-1942," Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society, 1942, 4:197-207, on p. 205.
139. Andrew Warwick, "Frequency, Theorem, and Formula: Remembering Joseph Larmor in Electromagnetic Theory," Notes Rec. Roy. Soc. Lond., 1993, 47:49-60.
140. "Sectional Committee for Mathematics," Minute Books (CMB/46/4), Royal Society Archives. Two days after this meeting, Lodge referred to Jeans's criticisms in a letter to Larmor: Lodge to Larmor, 9 Dec. 1922, Larmor Papers, Royal Society Archives.
141. Larmor to Lodge, 8 Dec. 1922, Lodge Papers.
142. Lodge to Larmor, 9 Dec. 1922, Larmor Papers, Royal Society Archives.
143. Charles Herbert Lees, 1864-1952,Obituary Notices Fellows Roy. Soc., 1953, 8:523-528.
144. "W. M. Hicks Referee Report 1925" (No. 186), Royal Society Archives.
145. S. R. Milner, "William Mitchinson Hicks, 1850-1934," Obituary Notices Fellows Roy. Soc., 1935, 4:393-399. In the end, neither Hicks's nor Lees's papers was published, although Lees's was read at a meeting.
146. Burnham, "How Journal Editors Came to Develop and Critique Peer Review Procedures," in Research Ethics, Manuscript Review, and Journal Quality, ed. Henry R. Mayland and R. E. Sojka (Madison, Wis.: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, 1992), pp. 55-62.
147. Royal Society, Proceedings A-Information for Referees, http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/site/misc/ referees.xhtml, 2013 (accessed 1 Sept. 2013).
148. Royal Society, "Editorial Standards and Processes," Royal Society Publishing-Policy and Ethics, http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/authors/policy.xhtml, 2013 (accessed 1 Sept. 2013).
149. Amber E. Budden, Tom Tregenza, Lonnie W. Aarssen, Julia Koricheva, Roosa Leimu, and Christopher J. Lortie, "Double-Blind Review Favours Increased Representation of Female Authors," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2008, 23:4-6.
150. PLOS ONE Guidelines for Reviewers, http://www.plosone.org/static/reviewerGuidelines, 2013 (accessed 1 Sept. 2013).
151. Melinda Baldwin, "'Keeping in the Race': Physics, Publication Speed, and National Publishing Strategies in Nature, 1895-1939," Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 2014, 47:257-279.
152. Jeans to Richardson, 30 Nov. 1925.
153. William Edward Curtis, "New Series in the Secondary Hydrogen Spectrum," Phil. Mag., 1926, Ser. 7, 1:695-700.