Hubbry Logo
Scientific literatureScientific literatureMain
Open search
Scientific literature
Community hub
Scientific literature
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Scientific literature
Scientific literature
Scientific literature
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
The frontispiece for some early scientific literature published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
Part of a series on
Science
A stylised Bohr model of a lithium atom
General
Branches
In society

Scientific literature encompasses a vast body of academic papers that spans various disciplines within the natural and social sciences. It primarily consists of academic papers that present original empirical research and theoretical contributions. These papers serve as essential sources of knowledge and are commonly referred to simply as "the literature" within specific research fields.

The process of academic publishing involves disseminating research findings to a wider audience. Researchers submit their work to reputable journals or conferences, where it undergoes rigorous evaluation by experts in the field. This evaluation, known as peer review, ensures the quality, validity, and reliability of the research before it becomes part of the scientific literature. Peer-reviewed publications contribute significantly to advancing our understanding of the world and shaping future research endeavors.

Original scientific research first published in scientific journals constitutes primary literature. Patents and technical reports, which cover minor research results and engineering and design efforts, including computer software, are also classified as primary literature.

Secondary sources comprise review articles that summarize the results of published studies to underscore progress and new research directions, as well as books that tackle extensive projects or comprehensive arguments, including article compilations.

Tertiary sources encompass encyclopedias and similar works designed for widespread public consumption.

Types of scientific publications

[edit]

Scientific literature can include the following kinds of publications:[1]

Literature may also be published in areas considered to be "grey", as they are published outside of traditional channels.[1] This material is customarily not indexed by major databases and can include manuals, theses and dissertations, or newsletters and bulletins.[1]

The significance of different types of the scientific publications can vary between disciplines and change over time.[citation needed] According to James G. Speight and Russell Foote, peer-reviewed journals are the most prominent and prestigious form of publication.[2] University presses are more prestigious than commercial press publication.[3] The status of working papers and conference proceedings depends on the discipline; they are typically more important in the applied sciences. The value of publication as a preprint or scientific report on the web has in the past been low, but in some subjects, such as mathematics or high energy physics, it is now an accepted alternative.[citation needed]

Scientific papers and articles

[edit]

Scientific papers have been categorised into ten types. Eight of these carry specific objectives, while the other two can vary depending on the style and the intended goal.[4]

Papers that carry specific objectives are:[4]

  • An original article provides new information from original research supported by evidence.
  • Case reports are unique events[clarification needed] that researchers read to obtain information on the subject.
  • A technical note is a description of a technique or piece of equipment that has been modified from an existing one to be new and more effective.
  • A pictorial essay is a series of high-quality images published for teaching purposes.
  • A review is a detailed analysis of recent developments on a topic.
  • A commentary is a short summary of an author's personal experience.
  • Editorials are short reviews or critiques of original articles.
  • Letters to the editor are communications directed to the editor of an article to ask questions and provide constructive criticism.

The following two categories are variable, including for example historical articles and speeches:[4]

  • Nonscientific material: This type of material comes from the result of an article being published.[clarification needed] It does not advance an article scientifically but instead contributes to its reputation as a scientific article.
  • Other: Other types of papers not listed under non-scientific material or in any of the above eight categories. They can vary depending on the objective and style of the article.

Scientific article

[edit]
See also: Academic publishing § Scholarly paper, and Academic journal § Scholarly articles

Preparation

[edit]

The actual day-to-day records of scientific information are kept in research notebooks or logbooks. These are usually kept indefinitely as the basic evidence of the work, and are often kept in duplicate, signed, notarized, and archived. The purpose is to preserve the evidence for scientific priority, and in particular for priority for obtaining patents. They have also been used in scientific disputes. Since the availability of computers, the notebooks in some data-intensive fields have been kept as database records, and appropriate software is commercially available.[5]

The work on a project is typically published as one or more technical reports, or articles. In some fields both are used, with preliminary reports, working papers, or preprints followed by a formal article. Articles are usually prepared at the end of a project, or at the end of components of a particularly large one. In preparing such an article vigorous rules for scientific writing have to be followed.

Language

[edit]
See also: Impact factor and Copy editing

Often, career advancement depends upon publishing in high-impact journals, which, especially in hard and applied sciences, are usually published in English.[6] Consequently, scientists with poor English writing skills are at a disadvantage when trying to publish in these journals, regardless of the quality of the scientific study itself.[7] Yet many[which?] international universities require publication in these high-impact journals by both their students and faculty. One way that some international authors are beginning to overcome this problem is by contracting with freelance copy editors who are native speakers of English and specialize in ESL (English as a second language) editing to polish their manuscripts' English to a level that high-impact journals will accept.[citation needed]

Structure and style

[edit]
IMRaD structure of Scientific articles according to so called Wineglass model
Main article: IMRAD

Although the content of an article is more important than the format, it is customary for scientific articles to follow a standard structure, which varies only slightly in different subjects. Although the IMRAD structure emphasizes the organization of content, and in scientific journal articles, each section (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) has unique conventions for scientific writing style.[8]

The following are key guidelines for formatting, although each journal etc will to some extent have its own house style:

  • The title attracts readers' attention and informs them about the contents of the article.[9] Titles are distinguished into three main types: declarative titles (state the main conclusion), descriptive titles (describe a paper's content), and interrogative titles (challenge readers with a question that is answered in the text).[10] Some journals indicate, in their instructions to authors, the type (and length) of permitted titles.
  • The names and affiliations of all authors are given. In the wake of some scientific misconduct cases, publishers often require that all co-authors know and agree on the content of the article.[11]
  • An abstract summarizes the work (in a single paragraph or in several short paragraphs) and is intended to represent the article in bibliographic databases and to furnish subject metadata for indexing services.
  • The context of previous scientific investigations should be presented, by citation of relevant documents in the existing literature, usually in a section called an "Introduction".
  • Empirical techniques, laid out in a section usually called "Materials and Methods", should be described in such a way that a subsequent scientist, with appropriate knowledge of and experience in the relevant field, should be able to repeat the observations and know whether he or she has obtained the same result. This naturally varies between subjects, and does not apply to mathematics and related subjects.
  • Similarly, the results of the investigation, in a section usually called "Results", should be presented in tabular or graphic form (image, chart, schematic, diagram or drawing). These display elements should be accompanied by a caption and should be discussed in the text of the article.
  • Interpretation of the meaning of the results is usually addressed in a "Discussion" or "Conclusions" section. The conclusions drawn should be based on the new empirical results while taking established knowledge into consideration, in such a way that any reader with knowledge of the field can follow the argument and confirm that the conclusions are sound. That is, acceptance of the conclusions must not depend on personal authority, rhetorical skill, or faith.
  • Finally, a "References" or "Literature Cited" section lists the sources cited by the authors.

Peer review

[edit]
Main article: Scholarly peer review

Increasing reliance on digital abstracting services and academic search engines means that the de facto acceptance in the academic discourse is predicted by the inclusion in such selective sources. Commercial providers of proprietary data include Chemical Abstracts Service, Web of Science and Scopus, while open data (and often open source, non-profit and library-led) services include DOAB, DOAJ and (for open access works) Unpaywall (based on CrossRef and Microsoft Academic records enriched with OAI-PMH data from open archives).[12]

Ethics

[edit]
See also: Scientific integrity

The transfer of copyright from author to publisher, used by some journals, can be controversial because many authors want to propagate their ideas more widely and re-use their material elsewhere without the need for permission. Usually an author or authors circumvent that problem by rewriting an article and using other pictures. Some publishers may also want publicity for their journal so will approve facsimile reproduction unconditionally; other publishers are more resistant.[citation needed]

In scientific publishing, a number of key issues include and are not restricted to:[13]

  • Honesty and integrity is a duty of each author and person, expert-reviewer and member of journal editorial boards.
  • The peer review process contributes to quality control and it is an essential step to ascertain the standing and originality of the research.[14]
    • Redundant publications: Publications generally should contain new unpublished material.[15]
    • Data fabrication is the process of purposefully changing data to make the information more in the favor of the author.[15]
  • Ethical standards: Recent journal editorials presented some experience of unscrupulous activities.[16][17]
    • Human welfare concerns: The guidelines for human experimentation started during WWII with the Nuremberg Code. It has evolved into three main principles from The Belmont Report. The subject must be able to make their own choices to protect themselves, benefits must outweigh the risks, and subjects must be evaluated for their selection and benefits must go to all of society.[15]
    • Animal welfare concerns: Is the ethical care of animals in scientific experiments. The APS has set strict guidelines and regulations to stop animals from being unnecessarily harmed in experiments. These are being updated regularly by the APS and is a federal law in the United States enforced by DHHS.[15]
  • Authorship: Who may claim a right to authorship?[13] In which order should the authors be listed?
    • Conflicts of interest: This refers to biases due to private interest. It can be done knowingly or not. This is unethical because it makes data inaccurate.[15]
    • Authorship disputes: The authorship of an article is simply the author of the article. The ethical issue with this is when there are two people that believe to be the author, but there is only one true author. There are guidelines to help pick which get authorship of the writing. The one that does not get authorship is put in the acknowledgments. The guidelines come from NIH and The Council of Science Editors.[15]

History

[edit]
See also: Scientific writing § History

The first recorded editorial pre-publication peer-review occurred in 1665 by the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Henry Oldenburg.[18][19]

Technical and scientific books were a specialty of David Van Nostrand, and his Engineering Magazine re-published contemporary scientific articles.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Scientific literature

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Scientific literature comprises the body of publications that document original research findings, methodologies, and analyses conducted by scientists, typically undergoing rigorous to ensure validity and reliability. It forms the foundational record of scientific knowledge, enabling researchers to build upon prior work, replicate studies, and advance collective understanding across disciplines. Originating with the establishment of the first scientific journals in the mid-17th century, such as the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in , scientific literature has grown exponentially, encompassing hundreds of millions of documents, with the volume having doubled approximately every 9-15 years in recent decades, though growth rates vary. This vast repository is produced and consumed primarily by the to communicate discoveries, foster collaboration, and drive innovation. Scientific literature is categorized into primary, secondary, and tertiary types based on their proximity to original . Primary literature includes firsthand accounts of experiments and observations, such as peer-reviewed journal articles, , theses, dissertations, and patents, which detail methods, results, and interpretations in a structured format. Secondary literature synthesizes and reviews primary sources, appearing in forms like review articles, monographs, textbooks, and systematic analyses that provide context, critiques, and broader implications without presenting new data. Tertiary literature compiles and indexes information from the other two categories for accessibility, including encyclopedias, bibliographies, , and handbooks aimed at both specialists and general audiences. The peer-review process is a of scientific literature, involving independent experts who evaluate submissions for scientific merit, , and methodological soundness before . This mechanism helps maintain high standards and filters out flawed or , though it is not infallible and continues to evolve with open-access models and servers. Beyond traditional print journals, modern scientific literature is increasingly digital, hosted on platforms like , , and , which facilitate global searchability and citation tracking. Ultimately, scientific literature not only preserves the historical progression of but also underpins evidence-based in , industry, and .

Definition and Scope

Core Definition

Scientific literature encompasses the body of scholarly written works in the sciences that report original research findings, comprehensive reviews, or critical analyses, primarily disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, academic books, and . This collection forms a cumulative and permanent record of scientific inquiry, enabling researchers to build upon prior knowledge and stay informed about advancements in their fields. Unlike general publications, scientific literature is grounded in systematic investigation and expert validation, serving as the foundational medium for within the . What distinguishes scientific literature from non-scientific or popular literature is its strict adherence to , detailed methodological descriptions that facilitate , and rigorous processes conducted by domain experts. Non-scientific works, such as news articles or general interest books, often prioritize accessibility and narrative appeal over verifiable data and replicable procedures, lacking the depth required for scientific scrutiny. In contrast, scientific literature demands transparency in methods, data, and conclusions to ensure reliability and minimize . Central characteristics of scientific literature include a commitment to objectivity through impartial reporting of results, extensive citation of prior sources to contextualize new contributions, and an overarching goal of advancing collective scientific knowledge. These elements promote and allow for ongoing evaluation and refinement of ideas. Peer-reviewed journal articles exemplify this, representing the primary vehicle for disseminating novel empirical results and serving as the cornerstone of the scientific publishing ecosystem. Through this structured , scientific literature plays a vital role in fostering by providing a verifiable of evidence-based insights.

Role in Scientific Communication

Scientific literature serves as the primary medium for results, enabling scientists to share findings with the global community through peer-reviewed journals and other publications. This process ensures that new discoveries, methodologies, and are accessible, fostering the rapid exchange of across disciplines. For instance, effective increases the visibility of outputs, allowing for societal and policy impacts, as seen in projects that use online tools and events to engage diverse audiences. Peer scrutiny via the process is integral to scientific communication, where experts evaluate manuscripts for validity, significance, and originality before publication. This mechanism filters low-quality work, corrects errors, and upholds the integrity of published research, with 85% of academics agreeing it greatly aids scientific communication. Citations within further enable building on prior work by acknowledging foundational contributions and providing a traceable record of intellectual progression, which supports the cumulative nature of scientific production. Archival preservation complements these functions by safeguarding unpublished materials like lab notebooks and digital records, offering future scholars context and authenticity for historical and legal analyses, as exemplified by archives of the . The impact of scientific literature extends to enabling , as detailed methodological reporting in publications allows independent verification, though inadequate details often hinder this, with 70% of biologists unable to replicate others' findings. It fosters by making accessible for recombination among scientists, , and commercial actors, thereby driving networked partnerships and collective problem-solving. Additionally, meta-analyses synthesize existing literature to resolve inconsistencies and update evidence, promoting innovation in fields like , where open practices enhance efficiency and guide future studies. Despite these benefits, challenges persist, including accessibility barriers from paywalls, which restrict approximately 72% of scholarly publications as of 2018 and reduce citations compared to , exacerbating inequities for patients and global south researchers. , driven by exponential publication growth, overwhelms researchers, complicating the identification of relevant literature amid vast digital outputs. Metrics such as citation counts and journal impact factors gauge the influence of scientific literature in communication. Citation counts measure an article's reach by tallying references in other works, reflecting its contribution to ongoing . Impact factors, calculated as the average citations to a journal's recent articles, indicate a publication's prominence, though they assess journals rather than individual papers.

Types of Publications

Primary Sources

Primary sources in scientific literature consist of original research outputs that present new data, findings, or observations directly from the investigators who conducted the work. These sources provide firsthand accounts of experiments, surveys, or theoretical developments, serving as the raw material for advancing knowledge in a field. Common examples include journal articles reporting empirical results, conference papers detailing presentations of novel findings, theses and dissertations from graduate research, patents, and preprints shared on platforms like or to disseminate preliminary data ahead of formal publication. Key characteristics of primary sources emphasize their originality and evidential basis, including detailed descriptions of research methods, presentation of results with supporting , and often appendices with raw datasets or supplementary materials. They prioritize novelty, requiring authors to demonstrate how their work contributes new or insights not previously documented in the . Unlike synthesized analyses, these documents focus on the investigators' direct experiences and measurements, enabling by other researchers. Primary sources appear in various formats to accommodate different scopes and urgency of research. Full-length research papers allow comprehensive coverage of methodology, extensive results, and in-depth discussion, suitable for complex studies. In contrast, short communications or letters present concise reports of significant preliminary findings or rapid discoveries, prioritizing brevity while still including essential methods and data to facilitate quick dissemination. These formats generally follow a standard structure of abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion, as outlined in broader guidelines for scientific articles. As the foundational building blocks of scientific progress, primary sources enable the accumulation of verifiable evidence that subsequent studies build upon, fostering cumulative knowledge and innovation across disciplines. They underpin and citation networks, where high-impact examples like seminal papers in or conference proceedings from major events shape research trajectories and policy decisions.

Secondary and Tertiary Sources

Secondary sources in scientific literature encompass interpretive works that analyze, synthesize, and evaluate multiple primary studies to provide broader insights into a research field. These include review articles, which critically assess and summarize existing on a specific topic; meta-analyses, which statistically combine results from numerous primary studies to draw more robust conclusions; and scholarly books or monographs that interpret trends across primary literature. Unlike primary sources, secondary sources emphasize synthesis over new empirical data, often highlighting methodological consistencies, discrepancies, and emerging patterns in the literature. The value of secondary sources lies in their role in facilitating literature reviews, identifying research gaps, and informing generation for future studies. For instance, a might reveal the overall efficacy of a treatment across diverse trials, guiding clinical decisions more effectively than individual studies alone. By distilling complex primary data into accessible narratives, these sources enable researchers to contextualize their work within the broader scientific discourse, promoting interdisciplinary connections and avoiding redundant investigations. Tertiary sources compile, index, or organize information from primary and secondary literature to offer overviews, references, or quick access points for broad topics. Examples include databases such as , which indexes millions of biomedical articles for search and retrieval; encyclopedias and handbooks that provide concise summaries with citations to underlying sources; and bibliographies that catalog relevant publications. These resources focus on aggregation and accessibility rather than original analysis, serving as starting points for researchers to navigate vast scientific corpora efficiently. Tertiary sources are particularly valuable for initial exploration in literature reviews, offering structured entryways to primary and secondary materials while highlighting key trends and historical developments in a field. For example, a handbook might outline foundational concepts in a discipline with references to seminal reviews, aiding in the rapid identification of pertinent studies and fostering informed hypothesis formulation. Their emphasis on organization and summarization reduces the time required for comprehensive searches, thereby enhancing the efficiency of scientific inquiry.

Anatomy of Scientific Articles

Standard Structure

The standard structure of scientific articles adheres to the format—Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion—which organizes content to mirror the scientific process and facilitate reader comprehension. This format emerged in the early and became dominant in biomedical and natural sciences journals by the , promoting a logical sequence from context and rationale to evidence and analysis. Its widespread use ensures that articles are self-contained, allowing readers to quickly assess relevance and replicate work. The Introduction provides essential background on the research topic, synthesizes prior studies to identify gaps, and clearly articulates the study's objectives, hypotheses, or questions. It sets the stage for the investigation without delving into results, typically comprising 10-20% of the total article length to maintain focus. The Methods (or Materials and Methods) section describes the experimental design, materials, protocols, and statistical approaches in sufficient detail for replication, including any ethical approvals or software used. This component prioritizes objectivity and transparency, often comprising 20-30% of the word count. The Results section objectively reports the main findings, using text, tables, and figures to present data like measurements or outcomes, while avoiding speculation or comparison to other studies. Key results are highlighted with visuals for clarity, typically accounting for 20-30% of the article and including statistical summaries where relevant. The Discussion interprets the results in the context of the introduction's objectives, compares them to existing literature, addresses limitations, and outlines implications for theory, practice, or future research. It often forms 20-30% of the length, emphasizing synthesis over new data. Beyond the core IMRaD sections, articles include an Abstract, a standalone 150-300 word summary covering purpose, methods, key results, and conclusions to aid indexing and skimming; Keywords or phrases for searchability; an Acknowledgments section crediting funding, collaborators, or assistance; a comprehensive References list in a journal-specific style (e.g., Vancouver or APA); and Appendices or supplementary information for extended data, protocols, or raw datasets. These elements frame the main content, with the abstract often structured to parallel IMRaD for brevity. The structure's purpose is to promote by detailing methods explicitly, ensure a clear narrative flow from problem to solution, and standardize communication across diverse audiences, thereby enhancing the reliability and accessibility of scientific knowledge. It reflects the iterative nature of , guiding readers through rationale, execution, evidence, and significance. Representative examples illustrate practical implementation: In , articles have no fixed word limit but are typically 3,000-7,000 words total, with figures embedded near their textual reference or grouped after the references to support results presentation. Conversely, imposes a ~3,000-word limit on main text (excluding methods), with up to 8 display items like figures placed at the end during submission for streamlined review. While the format provides this universal template, some fields adapt it slightly, such as merging results and discussion in humanities-influenced sciences.

Disciplinary Variations

Scientific literature exhibits disciplinary variations in article structure, adapting the core format to accommodate field-specific methodologies and emphases. These adaptations reflect the unique demands of empirical practices, theoretical orientations, and types across domains. In the physical sciences, such as physics and chemistry, the methods and results sections often emphasize mathematical models and simulations to derive predictions and interpret phenomena. These sections detail model assumptions, parameters, and validation against experimental , with simulations presented alongside empirical results to highlight and robustness. For instance, papers integrate computational models to test hypotheses, using visual comparisons of and predictions while specifying availability for . Life sciences articles, including those in biology and medicine, prioritize detailed experimental protocols in the methods section to ensure , often spanning several pages with step-by-step descriptions of materials, procedures, and controls like blinding and . The results section incorporates extensive statistical analyses, reporting means with standard deviations for normally distributed data or medians with ranges for skewed datasets, alongside tests such as t-tests or ANOVA to validate findings. These elements underscore the reliance on empirical validation and quantitative rigor in biological research. Social sciences publications, such as in and , frequently expand the discussion section to include theoretical frameworks that contextualize findings within broader conceptual models, drawing on established theories to interpret results. Qualitative , including transcripts or thematic analyses, are integrated here to enrich quantitative outcomes, often using frameworks like to scaffold interpretations and highlight societal implications. This approach supports the field's focus on explanatory depth over purely experimental replication. In humanities-influenced fields like , articles feature extended literature reviews in the introduction to synthesize prior studies and justify hypotheses, often comprising a significant portion of the paper to establish theoretical grounding. Ethical statements are prominently included, detailing approvals, procedures, and measures to protect participant welfare, reflecting the discipline's emphasis on human subjects research. These components align with guidelines from bodies like the , ensuring transparency in behavioral studies. Emerging trends in increasingly incorporate dedicated sections or statements, mandating deposition of datasets, code, and protocols in public repositories to facilitate and verification. Journals like PLOS require authors to affirm data availability upon , promoting transparency in algorithm-driven analyses and large-scale genomic simulations. This practice addresses challenges in data-intensive fields, with policies evolving to standardize such disclosures.

Writing and Language

Preparation Process

The preparation of scientific manuscripts begins with a thorough literature search to identify existing knowledge gaps and contextualize the proposed research. Authors systematically review relevant publications using databases such as or to ensure novelty and avoid duplication of efforts. Following the , authors formulate a clear or that guides the study design. This stage involves defining objectives, selecting appropriate methodologies, and outlining expected outcomes based on preliminary evidence. Data collection and then proceed, encompassing experimental or observational procedures, statistical testing, and interpretation of results to test the . Rigorous during this phase is essential to support . In recent years, (AI) tools have become integral to the preparation process, assisting with literature summarization, generation, , and initial drafting while maintaining ethical standards for authorship and originality. As of 2025, tools like AI-powered research assistants enhance efficiency without replacing human expertise. Drafting the manuscript typically starts with the methods section to capture procedural details accurately, followed by results, introduction, and discussion, often adhering to the structure for clarity. Authors use reference management tools like or to organize citations efficiently. Revisions involve multiple iterations, incorporating feedback from co-authors via collaboration software such as or , and version control systems like to track changes. This ensures logical flow and completeness before finalizing. Common pitfalls include incomplete descriptions of methods, which hinder , and overclaiming results beyond the data's support, potentially leading to rejection. The entire process from initial idea to often spans 12-18 months, depending on complexity and team size.

Style and Clarity Guidelines

Scientific literature adheres to established principles that prioritize precision and accessibility. Traditionally, employed the to emphasize objectivity and focus on actions rather than performers, as seen in phrases like "The experiment was conducted" rather than "We conducted the experiment." However, contemporary guidelines increasingly recommend the for its conciseness and clarity, particularly when the actor is relevant, such as in methods sections where "Researchers measured the samples" conveys directness without ambiguity. Concise phrasing is essential, involving the elimination of redundant words and unnecessary qualifiers to streamline sentences—for instance, preferring "The results increased" over "The results showed an increase in value." Avoidance of is equally critical; technical terms should be defined upon first use or replaced with plain equivalents to ensure comprehension by interdisciplinary readers, as excessive specialized vocabulary can obscure meaning. Formatting conventions in scientific articles standardize presentation to enhance reproducibility and readability. The (SI) is the global standard for measurements, requiring symbols like "m" for to be printed in , with a space between the numerical value and unit (e.g., 5.2 kg), and prohibiting abbreviations like "sec" for seconds. Figure captions must be self-contained, descriptive, and placed below the figure, explaining key elements without relying on the main text—for example, "Figure 1: Growth curve of bacterial cultures at 37°C, showing exponential phase from 4–8 hours." Tables should feature clear headings, aligned data, and minimal lines for borders, with captions above the table to summarize content and highlight trends, avoiding clutter from excessive footnotes. Citation styles vary but follow structured formats; , common in , uses author-date in-text citations (e.g., Smith, 2023), while , prevalent in , employs sequential numbers with a numbered reference list. Clarity techniques underpin effective communication by guiding readers through complex information. Logical flow is achieved through structured progression, using transitional phrases like "Furthermore" or "In contrast" to link sentences and paragraphs, ensuring arguments build coherently from introduction to conclusion. Visual aids, such as graphs and diagrams, supplement text by illustrating data trends—bar charts for comparisons or line graphs for temporal changes—always referenced in the narrative to avoid isolation. Abstracts demand , employing short (under 25 words) and active constructions to summarize purpose, methods, results, and implications accessibly, targeting a broad audience beyond specialists. Discipline-specific guides tailor these principles to field norms. , favored in social sciences, emphasizes author-date citations and detailed footnotes for nuanced arguments, supporting interdisciplinary analysis in fields like . In contrast, the ACS Style Guide for chemistry prioritizes numerical citations and precise , including formatting for equations and spectra, to accommodate technical rigor in experimental reporting.

Publication Workflow

Peer Review Mechanisms

Peer review serves as a cornerstone quality control mechanism in scientific publishing, whereby independent experts evaluate manuscripts for validity, originality, and significance before publication. This process aims to uphold the integrity of scientific literature by filtering out flawed or unsubstantiated claims, thereby fostering trust in the scholarly record. Various types of peer review exist to balance , transparency, and bias mitigation. In single-blind review, the reviewer's identity is concealed from the author, while the author's identity is known; this remains the most prevalent format, used in approximately 72% of journals (as of 2023). Double-blind review conceals both parties' identities to reduce potential biases related to author prestige or affiliation, employed by about 28% of journals (as of 2023). Open review discloses both identities, promoting but potentially discouraging candid feedback, and remains uncommon. Additionally, preprints—non-peer-reviewed manuscripts shared on servers like or —enable post-publication peer review through public comments, allowing rapid dissemination and community input without traditional gatekeeping. The process typically begins with editorial assessment upon manuscript submission, where an editor evaluates initial suitability and assigns it to 2–4 reviewers selected for expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers scrutinize the work for methodological rigor, novelty, and clarity, providing detailed feedback often within 4–8 weeks per round. Authors then receive the consolidated reports, leading to decisions such as outright (rare, around 10–20% of submissions), major or minor revisions with re-review, or rejection (50–70% of cases). Multiple revision rounds may occur, extending the timeline, with editors ultimately mediating outcomes to ensure alignment with journal standards. Among its benefits, reduces publication biases by leveraging expert scrutiny, detects errors such as methodological flaws (though averaging only two per ), and enhances overall credibility, making reviewed articles a reliable foundation for scientific advancement. It also promotes by flagging inconsistencies early, contributing to a more robust . Ethical reviewer conduct, such as declaring conflicts of interest, further supports these gains as outlined in broader guidelines. Emerging tools, including AI for error detection and platforms like for ongoing scrutiny, are addressing some limitations. Despite these advantages, faces significant criticisms. It often introduces delays of 3–6 months on average from submission to decision, hindering timely sharing in fast-evolving fields. Persistent biases persist, including favoritism toward established institutions or disparities, even in blinded formats, with low inter-reviewer agreement (correlation around 0.34) undermining consistency. Furthermore, it inadequately addresses crises, missing a substantial portion of statistical errors in some studies and failing to detect or fabrication in many instances. Post-publication review via preprints mitigates some delays but risks disseminating unvetted errors without formal validation.

Editing and Dissemination

Following acceptance after , scientific manuscripts undergo to refine language, structure, and presentation before dissemination to the . The phase begins with copyediting, where professional editors correct , , , citation formatting, and adherence to journal style guidelines, ensuring clarity and consistency without altering scientific content. This is followed by , a final check for typographical errors, layout issues, and formatting in the typeset version, often involving conversion to PDF, HTML, and XML for digital compatibility. Authors typically receive tracked changes or proofs during these stages and respond by approving edits, suggesting minor revisions, or providing clarifications to maintain accuracy. Scientific literature is disseminated through various publishing models that balance accessibility and sustainability. In the traditional subscription model, access to journal content is granted via institutional or individual payments, restricting readership to paying users. Open access (OA) models promote broader availability: gold OA makes the final published version immediately and permanently free online, often funded by article processing charges () paid by authors or institutions, with content licensed under for reuse. Green OA allows authors to self-archive an accepted manuscript in repositories after an embargo period, without APCs, while retaining publisher copyrights. Hybrid models combine subscription access with optional gold OA for individual articles upon APC payment, enabling selective open dissemination within paywalled journals. To ensure long-term accessibility, publications are assigned a , a persistent alphanumeric string that provides a stable link to the content regardless of website changes, facilitating reliable citation and retrieval. Dissemination occurs primarily through journal issues, released in print or digital formats to subscribers and OA readers, marking the official publication date. Preprints are shared via online repositories like , an open-access platform hosting over 2.88 million scholarly articles in physics, mathematics, , and related fields (as of November 2025), enabling rapid sharing before formal . Researchers stay informed through alerts, such as notifications for new journal issues, table-of-contents updates, or search-based matches in databases like . Beyond traditional citation counts, gauge the broader societal impact of scientific literature by tracking online attention from sources including mentions, news coverage, policy documents, blog posts, and downloads. This approach captures real-time engagement and influence outside academia, complementing slower citation-based metrics to provide a more holistic view of research reach.

Ethical Principles

Authorship and Integrity

Authorship in scientific literature requires meeting specific criteria to appropriately credit contributors and ensure accountability for the work. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) defines authorship based on four essential elements: substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; providing final approval of the version to be published; and agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part are appropriately investigated and resolved. These criteria aim to distinguish authors from other contributors, such as those acknowledged for technical assistance, and are widely adopted across medical and scientific journals to prevent honorary or ghost authorship. Scientific integrity demands honest reporting of findings, free from fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting, which undermine trust in the . Fabrication involves inventing or results and recording or reporting them as genuine, while falsification entails manipulating research materials, , processes, or —such as altering images or omitting inconvenient results—to misrepresent outcomes. Selective reporting, often considered a form of , occurs when present only favorable findings while suppressing conflicting , leading to biased conclusions that can influence policy or . Fabrication and falsification are classified as misconduct under federal definitions , applicable to proposing, performing, or reporting . Detection of such integrity breaches often relies on statistical checks to identify anomalies in data patterns. Methods like the Newcomb-Benford Law examine the distribution of leading digits in numerical , where genuine datasets follow a logarithmic pattern but fabricated ones deviate due to human bias toward uniformity. Other tools include GRIM tests, which verify the mathematical consistency of reported means and standard deviations, and analyses of distributions for signs of manipulation, such as excessive clustering around 0.05. These forensic techniques have been instrumental in uncovering fraud in fields like and , though they require access to raw or summary and are most effective when combined with peer scrutiny. Plagiarism represents another core threat to , encompassing the unauthorized use of others' ideas, methods, or text in . Direct copying, or verbatim plagiarism, involves reproducing passages word-for-word without or attribution, often detected in introductions or discussions. Self-plagiarism occurs when authors reuse substantial portions of their own prior work without disclosure, including duplicate publications of identical data or segmented reporting that fragments a single study across multiple papers. Idea theft, sometimes termed or paraphrased plagiarism, entails rephrasing others' concepts without credit, blending them seamlessly into new text to appear original. Software tools like and scan manuscripts against vast databases to flag these issues, enabling journals to enforce originality before publication. To support transparent authorship and combat integrity violations, policies emphasize unique identifiers and institutional safeguards. The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) system assigns persistent digital identifiers to individuals, linking researchers to their publications and affiliations across platforms to resolve name ambiguities and ensure accurate attribution in scientific databases. Over 7,000 journals now integrate ORCID during submission, facilitating disambiguation and reducing errors in citation tracking. Institutions, in turn, maintain oversight through mandated policies that define misconduct, outline inquiry and investigation procedures, and protect whistleblowers, as required by bodies like the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). In September 2024, ORI issued a final rule modernizing the federal policy on research misconduct, effective August 2025, which incorporates intent requirements (intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly) and streamlines institutional procedures. These frameworks promote a culture of accountability, with regular training and reporting mechanisms to address allegations promptly and fairly. Alongside these human-centred authorship criteria, the growing use of AI in research has prompted debate over whether non-human systems can be named in the scientific record. Major journal policies and ethics bodies currently state that AI tools should not be listed as authors, because they cannot take responsibility, respond to peer review, or meet accountability requirements, and should instead be cited as methods or software. At the margins, however, experimental projects have begun to treat AI systems as attributed contributors within existing scholarly infrastructures. The Aisentica Research Group, for example, credits the AI-based identity Angela Bogdanova as a Digital Author Persona in philosophical and meta-theoretical publications, registering this non-human figure with an ORCID iD and assigning a Zenodo DOI to a semantic specification of its role. In these cases, the AI is listed alongside human collaborators in author bylines, while responsibility for research integrity and ethics remains with the human co-authors. Such experiments are rare and contested, but they illustrate emerging tensions between traditional person-centred notions of authorship and the increasingly automated, distributed production of scientific literature.

Conflicts and Retraction Policies

Conflicts of interest in scientific literature refer to any financial or non-financial relationships that could potentially influence the objectivity of , such as funding from industry sponsors, personal relationships with entities involved in the study, or competing academic interests. Financial conflicts typically include , ownership, consulting fees, or from organizations with stakes in the research outcomes, while non-financial conflicts encompass intellectual biases like rivalries or ideological affiliations. To mitigate these, most high-impact scientific journals mandate full disclosure of conflicts by authors, reviewers, and editors using standardized forms like the ICMJE Uniform Disclosure Form, ensuring transparency and allowing readers to assess potential biases. Failure to disclose is considered , potentially leading to article rejection or retraction. Retraction processes serve as a critical mechanism for correcting the scientific record when published work is found to be unreliable, guided primarily by the (COPE) guidelines. COPE recommends retraction for reasons including honest errors that invalidate conclusions, such as fabrication or falsification of data, , , unethical research practices, compromised , or undisclosed conflicts of interest that undermine trust in the findings. The process involves editors, in consultation with publishers and sometimes institutions, investigating concerns promptly; if confirmed, a retraction notice is issued, clearly stating the reasons, linking to the original article, and remaining freely accessible without removing the retracted content from archives. For inconclusive cases, an expression of concern may be published temporarily. The impact of retractions has grown significantly, with the Database recording over 52,000 retracted publications as of 2025, the vast majority occurring since 2000 due to increased scrutiny and publication volume. Scientific journals distinguish between errata and full retractions to appropriately address different levels of error without unduly penalizing minor issues. Errata correct inadvertent mistakes introduced by authors or publishers, such as typographical errors, mislabeled figures, or minor data inaccuracies that do not affect the overall validity of the conclusions, and are published as linked notices without altering the original article's status. In contrast, full retractions apply to pervasive problems like irreproducible results, , or ethical violations that compromise the entire work's , marking the article as unreliable while preserving it for historical . Embargo policies in often extend to corrections and retractions, requiring media outlets to withhold reporting until official notices are public to prevent premature dissemination of unverified changes. Databases like aggregate and analyze these notices, providing searchable records to track patterns and inform future research practices. Modern challenges in managing conflicts and retractions include the rise of predatory journals, which charge publication fees without rigorous , often leading to the dissemination of flawed or fraudulent work that later requires mass retractions. These outlets, identified through archived lists like of potential predatory publishers or current resources such as Cabell's Predatory Reports, exploit open-access models by mimicking legitimate journals while skipping ethical oversight. Fake peer review schemes, where authors or third parties fabricate reviewer identities to approve substandard manuscripts, have also proliferated, prompting COPE to update guidelines for batch retractions in cases involving paper mills or systematic deception. Such issues highlight the need for enhanced verification in publication workflows to safeguard scientific integrity.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Forms

The origins of scientific literature trace back to ancient , where Babylonian clay tablets from around 1800 BCE recorded astronomical observations, mathematical computations, and applied knowledge such as the tablet, which features Pythagorean triples predating Greek geometry. These inscriptions represent early systematic documentation of natural phenomena, serving practical purposes like predicting planetary positions and eclipses. In ancient Greece, Aristotle (384–322 BCE) advanced this tradition through comprehensive treatises that integrated observation with philosophical inquiry, including Physics for natural motion, On the Heavens for cosmology, and History of Animals for biological classification based on empirical descriptions of over 500 species. His approach emphasized teleological explanations and deductive syllogisms to organize knowledge, laying foundational texts that influenced Western science for centuries. During the medieval (8th–13th centuries), scholars translated and synthesized Greek works into Arabic, preserving and innovating upon ancient knowledge amid Europe's intellectual decline. A prime example is Ibn Sina (Avicenna)'s (1025 CE), a five-volume that compiled , , and clinical methods from , , and contemporaries, while introducing experimental diagnostics and systematic organization. This text, translated into Latin in the , became a cornerstone of medical education in both the Islamic world and for over 600 years. The (14th–17th centuries) revitalized scientific writing through the , invented by around 1440, which enabled mass production of illustrated books and challenged reliance on handwritten manuscripts. ' De Humani Corporis Fabrica (1543) exemplified this shift, featuring detailed illustrations of human dissections that corrected Galenic errors through direct observation, establishing as a visually descriptive discipline. By the 17th century, the Enlightenment fostered institutional structures for knowledge exchange, with the Royal Society of London—chartered in 1660—promoting . Its publication, Philosophical Transactions (launched March 1665 by secretary ), became the first dedicated scientific journal, serializing letters on discoveries like Robert Boyle's air pump experiments to facilitate international correspondence and verification. Throughout these early forms, scientific literature primarily comprised descriptive narratives of observations and causal explanations, as in Aristotelian treatises, rather than the controlled empirical testing that characterized later methodologies like those of and . This narrative style prioritized comprehensive classification and philosophical integration over replicable experiments, evolving gradually toward modern structures by the .

20th-Century Advancements

The marked a period of explosive growth in scientific literature, driven by increasing specialization across disciplines. At the , approximately 10,000 scientific journals were in circulation worldwide, reflecting the expansion from earlier generalist publications like Nature, founded in as one of the first multidisciplinary outlets for emerging fields such as and physics. By the end of the century, this number had surged to over 100,000 journals, fueled by the proliferation of discipline-specific titles that catered to narrowing subfields in areas like , , and social sciences. This specialization allowed researchers to target precise audiences but also fragmented the literature, making comprehensive retrieval more challenging. World wars and subsequent funding surges profoundly influenced this expansion, particularly after . The conflict accelerated scientific collaboration and investment, with governments prioritizing research in defense-related fields like and , leading to a postwar boom in peer-reviewed output. Annual global scientific publications rose from roughly 10,000 in 1900 to about 50,000 by 1955, supported by initiatives such as the U.S. National Science Foundation's establishment in 1950, which channeled federal funds into and publication. This era's emphasis on evidence-based dissemination solidified as a cornerstone, transforming scientific literature from sporadic reports to a structured, voluminous record of knowledge production. Technological innovations further revolutionized access and preservation. In , emerged as a key archiving tool for libraries, enabling compact storage of deteriorating print materials; for instance, the began microfilming millions of pages of books and manuscripts between 1927 and 1935 to safeguard historical scientific texts. By the 1990s, the ushered in online journals, with early examples like the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research launching in 1993 as a fully digital, peer-reviewed outlet. This shift culminated in open-access models, exemplified by in 2006, which prioritized rapid dissemination over traditional prestige. To address the growing volume and retrieval issues, citation indexing was introduced in the 1960s by Eugene Garfield's (ISI), with the Science Citation Index debuting in 1964 to track references across journals and facilitate impact assessment. Later, the open-access movement gained momentum through the Budapest Open Access Initiative in 2002, which advocated for free online availability of peer-reviewed literature to democratize access amid rising subscription costs. These advancements not only managed the century's output but also laid the groundwork for digital-era reforms.

References

  1. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/glossary/scientific-literature/
  2. https://warnell.uga.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/scientificliterature.pdf
  3. https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/chemistry/literaturetutorial/cycle
  4. https://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/research-support/tutorials-information-literacy-and-critical-thinking/sources-information/popular-literature-vs-scholarly-peer-reviewed-literature-whats-difference
  5. https://libguides.uta.edu/scientific-primary-secondary
  6. https://libguides.mnstate.edu/c.php?g=443712&p=3026128
  7. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020731416676227
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4975196/
  9. https://imotions.com/blog/learning/best-practice/why-are-citations-important-in-science/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5538624/
  11. https://www.nature.com/articles/d42473-019-00004-y
  12. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/3/54
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8863703/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7048123/
  15. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/network/publishing/research-publishing/trending-stories/Fear-of-missing-out-vs-information-overload-researcher-challenges-in-a-digital-and-open-research-era
  16. https://researchguides.uic.edu/if/yourimpact
  17. https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/c.php?g=1067492&p=8331550
  18. https://libguides.dickinson.edu/primary/sciences/primary
  19. https://crk.umn.edu/library/primary-secondary-and-tertiary-sources
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5999550/
  21. https://www.library.unsw.edu.au/using-the-library/information-resources/primary-and-secondary-sources
  22. https://libguides.library.drexel.edu/biomed-literature-types
  23. https://georgiasouthern.libguides.com/scienceliterature/primarysecondary
  24. https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/scientificcommunication/chapter/journal-articles/
  25. https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/exploreinfo/sciences_primarysecondary
  26. https://library.onu.edu/c.php?g=357773&p=2720217
  27. https://utopia.ut.edu/CHE430/sourcetypes
  28. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/sources/tertiary
  29. https://research.library.gsu.edu/c.php?g=115556&p=752623
  30. https://libguides.ucmerced.edu/source-types
  31. https://guides.libraries.emory.edu/c.php?g=1083140&p=7898060
  32. https://libguides.seminolestate.edu/researchfoundations/primarysecondarytertiary
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC442179/
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4404856/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3474301/
  36. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines
  37. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/policy/structured_abstracts.html
  38. https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/initial-submission
  39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.10.002
  40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.12.006
  41. https://ichor.bio/media/wysiwyg/pdf/how-to-write-a-great-life-science-paper.pdf
  42. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bes2.1258
  43. https://td-sa.net/index.php/td/article/view/1468/2510
  44. https://psychology.yale.edu/sites/default/files/bemempirical.pdf
  45. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/publishing-policies
  46. https://www.nature.com/npjcompumats/editorial-policies/reporting-standards
  47. https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-020-02596-2
  48. https://intmed.vcu.edu/media/intmed-dev/documents/facdev/A6StepbyStepGuidetoWritingaScientificManuscriptbyWenzeletal.pdf
  49. https://www.frontiersin.org/for-authors/preparing-your-research/prepare-your-manuscript
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11981593/
  51. https://www.mendeley.com/
  52. https://guides.ucsf.edu/writingpublishing/writingtools
  53. https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/for_authors/top_five.htm
  54. https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/research-process/five-common-mistakes-to-avoid-when-writing-a-biomedical-research-paper/
  55. https://www.lumono.ai/blog/research-timeline-guide-what-to-actually-expect
  56. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/effective-writing-13815989/
  57. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/active-passive-voice
  58. https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lol2.10165
  59. https://www.bates.edu/biology/files/2010/06/Word-Usage-in-Scientific-Writing.pdf
  60. https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/writing-si-metric-system-units
  61. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/tables-figures/figures
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6501625/
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8524230/
  64. https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/figures-and-charts/
  65. https://www.jrheum.org/content/plain-language-summaries
  66. https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html
  67. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsguide.40303
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10319276/
  69. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2401232121
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4533968/
  71. https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/phases-academic-journal-production-why-every-editor-needs-to-know/
  72. https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/medical-writing/chapter/1-three-types-of-editing-proofreading-copy-editing-and-content-editing/
  73. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/choose-open/publishing-open-access/oa-green-gold/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356527/
  75. https://arxiv.org/show_monthly_submissions
  76. https://www.nihlibrary.nih.gov/resources/subject-guides/keeping-current/creating-alerts-web-science
  77. https://www.altmetric.com/
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5534517/
  79. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6133788/
  81. https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12121900/
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5122250/
  84. https://orcid.org/
  85. https://ori.hhs.gov/content/chapter-2-research-misconduct-Institutional-policies
  86. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/09/25/2024-21385/federal-policy-on-research-misconduct
  87. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools
  88. https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/ai
  89. https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6030-5730
  90. https://zenodo.org/records/15732480
  91. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html
  92. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12566852/
  94. https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/correction-and-retraction-policy
  95. https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/press-and-embargo-policies
  96. https://retractionwatch.com/
  97. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00709-x
  98. https://beallslist.net/
  99. https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-babylonian-tablet-may-contain-first-evidence-trigonometry
  100. https://phys.org/news/2017-08-mathematical-mystery-ancient-babylonian-clay.html
  101. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/
  102. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-sina/
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3702097/
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4762440/
  105. https://royalsociety.org/journals/publishing-activities/publishing350/history-philosophical-transactions/
  106. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/
  107. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0026
  108. https://www.nature.com/nature/history-of-nature
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10024814/
  110. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/ANNUAL-NUMBER-OF-SCIE-PUBLICATIONS-WORLDWIDE-1900-2011_fig1_282804221
  111. https://web-archive.southampton.ac.uk/journals.ecs.soton.ac.uk/survey/survey.html
  112. https://everyone.plos.org/2021/11/26/fifteen-years-of-plos-one/
  113. https://clarivate.com/academia-government/the-institute-for-scientific-information/history/
  114. https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.