The Rhetorical Construction of Novelty: Presenting Claims in a Letters Forum
- 1 January 1994
- journal article
- other
- Published by SAGE Publications in Science, Technology, & Human Values
- Vol. 19 (1) , 88-100
- https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399401900106
Abstract
Physical Review Letters has become the primary forum for the dissemination of innovative work in physics. Physicists' acceptance of this journal, and their adaptation to its requirements, show their ability to present their work in a variety of institutionally sanctioned but evolving frameworks. However, such a forum, because of its constraints on space and its emphasis on innovation, poses special problems to authors in relation to constructing their novel claims and reconstructing the consensus of their fields. In addition, itsprestige has caused the journal to acquire archivalfeatures that have slowed publication and resulted in other unintended consequences. Through an analysis of three letters published in Physical Review Letters and of a follow-up article published in Physical Review, the rhetorical features of this forum are examined as well as the problems its poses for the contextualization of novelty within relevant frameworks of accepted belief.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- What's Wrong with These Reviews?Physics Today, 1990
- Citations: Indicators of significance?Scientometrics, 1989
- Beamtimes and LifetimesPublished by Harvard University Press ,1988
- Getting out the Word: An Insider's View of Physical Review LettersPhysics Today, 1988
- The Writing of Research Article IntroductionsWritten Communication, 1987
- Putting Facts Together: A Study of Scientific PersuasionSocial Studies of Science, 1982
- First-Order Phase Transitions and the Three-State Potts ModelPhysical Review Letters, 1979
- Monte Carlo renormalization-group studies of theIsing modelPhysical Review B, 1979
- Monte Carlo Renormalization Group and Ising Models withPhysical Review Letters, 1979
- Monte Carlo Renormalization GroupPhysical Review Letters, 1979