Cover not available
Part of
Science Communication on the Internet: Old genres meet new genres
Edited by María José Luzón and Carmen Pérez-Llantada
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 308] 2019
► pp. 19–40

Chapter 2
At the frontlines of the online scientific article

Inaugurated in 1665, the scientific journal article slowly evolved an elaborate set of discourse norms related to style, presentation features like references and figures, and argument. With the recent “webification” of the scientific literature, these norms have remained in place while the digital opportunities afforded by webification have supplemented and enhanced some of them. Leading the way on these fronts has been a set of digital-only scientific journals published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) – founded in 2000 and now one of the major digital innovators in scientific publishing. This chapter focuses on the substantive changes PLOS and a few other publishers have brought to the genre of both the scientific article and journal, and speculates on what additional changes in the genre might be expected in the coming decades.
Keywords: Public Library of Science, webification, genre change, online scientific article, scientific research article
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Origin and evolution of the print scientific article
  • 3.Current state of the digital scientific article
  • 4.Future of the digital scientific article
    • 4.1State-of-the-art PLOS article
      • 4.1.1Front matter
      • 4.1.2Main text
      • 4.1.3Supporting information
    • 4.2Enhanced PLOS articles
  • 5.Other innovations possible for the future scientific article
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.308.02har
References (33)
References
Aalbersberg, IJsbrand J., Sophia Atzeni, Hylke Koers, Beate Specker, and Elena Zudilova-Seinstra. 2014. “Bringing Digital Science Deep Inside the Scientific Article: the Elsevier Article of the Future Project.” LIBER Quarterly 23(4): 274–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight. 1999. Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Banks, David. 2008. The Development of Scientific Writing: Linguistic Features and Historical Context. Oakville, CT: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Barber, Charles. 1962. “Some Measurable Characteristics of Modern Scientific Prose.” In Contributions to English Syntax and Philology, ed. by John Swales, 1–23. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Beal, Jeffrey. 2018. “Beal’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers.” Last accessed July 4, 2018. [URL]
Biber, Douglas, and James K. Jones. 2005. “Merging Corpus Linguistic and Discourse Analytic Research Goals: Discourse Units in Biology Research Articles.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1–2: 151–182.Google Scholar
Buehl, Jonathan. 2016. “Revolution or Evolution? Casing the Impact of Digital Media on the Rhetoric of Science.” In Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age, ed. by Alan G. Gross and Jonathan Buehl, 1–9. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.Google Scholar
Casper, Christian F. 2016. “The Online Research Article and the Ecological Basis of New Digital Genres.” In Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age, ed. by Alan G. Gross and Jonathan Buehl, 77–98. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.Google Scholar
Fahnestock, Jeanne. 2016. “Controversies on the Web: The Case of Adult Human Neurogenesis.” In Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age, ed. by Alan G. Gross and Jonathan Buehl, 117–141. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.Google Scholar
Giltrow, Janet. 2011. “‘Curious Gentlemen’: The Hudson’s Bay Company and the Royal Society, Business and Science in the Eighteen Century.” In Writing in Knowledge Societies, ed. by Doreen Starke-Meyerring, Anthony Paré, Natasha Artemeva, Miriam Horne, and Larissa Yousoubova, 53–74. West Lafayette: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Giltrow, Janet, and Dieter Stein (eds.). 2009. Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, Alan. 2016. “Revolution or Evolution? Casing the Impact of Digital Media on the Rhetoric of Science.” In Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age, ed. by Alan G. Gross and Jonathan Buehl, 59–76. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, Alan G., and Joseph E. Harmon. 2013. Science from Sight to Insight: How Scientists Illustrate Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The Internet Revolution in the Sciences and Humanities. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, Alan G., Joseph E. Harmon, and Michael Reidy. 2002. Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, Alan G., and Jonathan Buehl (eds.). 2016. Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harmon, Joseph. 2016. “The Scientific Journal: Making it New?” In Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age, ed. by Alan G. Gross, and Jonathan Buehl, 33–58. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.Google Scholar
Hobaiter, Catherine, Timothée Poisot, Klaus Zuberbühler, William Hoppitt, and Thibaud Gruber. 2014. “Social Network Analysis Shows Direct Evidence for Social Transmission of Tool Use in Wild Chimpanzees.” PLOS Biology 12(9): e1001960. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Benjamin F., Stefan Wuchty, and Brian Uzzi. 2008. “Multi-university Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science.” Science 322: 1259–1262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karlberg, Tobias, Susanne van den Berg, Martin Hammarström, Johanna Sagemark, Ida Johansson, Lovisa Holmberg-Schiavone, and Herwig Schüler. 2009. “Crystal Structure of the ATPase Domain of the Human AAA+ Protein Paraplegin/SPG7.” PLOS One 4(10): e6975. DOI logo. See also video at [URL]
Klinkhamer, Ada J., D. Ray Wilhite, Matt A. White, and Stephen Wroe. 2017. “Digital Dissection and Three-Dimensional Interactive Models of Limb Musculature in the Australian Estuarine Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus).” PLOS One 12(4): e0175079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehlenbacher, Ashley R. 2019. “Registered Reports: Genre Evolution and the Research Article.” Written Communication 36 (1): 38–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Carolyn R. 1984. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Owen, John M. 2007. The Scientific Article in the Age of Digitization. The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Reis, Renato B., Guilherme S. Ribeiro, Ridalva D. M. Felzemburgh, Francisco S. Santana, Sharif Mohr, Astrid X. T. O. Melendez, Adriano Queiroz, Andréia C. Santos, Romy R. Ravines, Wagner S. Tassinari, Marília S. Carvalho, Mitermayer G. Reis, and Albert I. Ko. 2008. “Impact of Environment and Social Gradient on Leptospira Infection in Urban Slums.” PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2(4): e228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shotton, David, Katie Portwin, Graham Klyne, and Alistair Miles. 2009. “Adventures in Semantic Publishing: Exemplar Semantic Enhancements of a Research Article.” PLOS Computational Biology 5(4): e1000361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidler, Michelle. 2016. “The Chemistry Liveblogging Event: The Web Refigures Peer Review.” In Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age, ed. by Alan G. Gross, and Jonathan Buehl, 99–116. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.Google Scholar
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weinberger, David. 2012. Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren’t the Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room Is the Room. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wickman, Chad. 2016. “Learning to “Share your Science”: The Open Notebook as Textual Object and Dynamic Rhetorical Space.” In Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age, ed. by Alan G. Gross, and Jonathan Buehl, 11–22. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wuchty, Stefan, Benjamins F. Jones, and Brian Uzzi. 2007. “The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge.” Science 316: 1036–1039. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Herman, Eti, John Akeroyd, Gaelle Bequet, David Nicholas & Anthony Watkinson
2020. The changed – and changing – landscape of serials publishing: Review of the literature on emerging models. Learned Publishing 33:3 ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.