More Scientific Papers are Published Than Can Possibly be Read

We should admit in theory what is already very largely a case in practice, that the main currency of scientific information is the secondary sources in the forms of abstracts, reports, tables, &c., and that the primary sources are only for detailed reference by very few people. It is possible that the fate of most scientific papers will be not to be read by anyone who uses them, but with luck they will furnish an item, a number, some facts or data to such reports which may, but usually will not, lead to the original paper being consulted. This is very sad but it is the inevitable consequence of the growth of science. The number of papers that can be consulted is absolutely limited, no more time can be spent in looking up papers, by and large, than in the past. As the number of papers increase the chance of any one paper being looked at is correspondingly diminished. This of course is only an average, some papers may be looked at by thousands of people and may become a regular and fixed part of science but most will perish unseen.


We must accept, therefore, that most work will go unnoticed and unacknowledged.

Folksonomies: science peer review publishing journals

/news (0.503243)
/business and industrial (0.313523)
/science (0.292725)

scientific papers (0.910598 (positive:0.429134)), inevitable consequence (0.740521 (neutral:0.000000)), main currency (0.722654 (neutral:0.000000)), secondary sources (0.697926 (neutral:0.000000)), primary sources (0.692795 (neutral:0.000000)), scientific information (0.686933 (neutral:0.000000)), original paper (0.679967 (neutral:0.000000)), number (0.578957 (negative:-0.429748)), reports (0.531566 (negative:-0.284379)), people (0.527218 (negative:-0.214304)), science (0.523453 (negative:-0.214304)), luck (0.474386 (positive:0.414113)), fate (0.473649 (neutral:0.000000)), work (0.472396 (negative:-0.573528)), item (0.469322 (positive:0.414113)), average (0.465423 (negative:-0.449689)), theory (0.465347 (neutral:0.000000)), case (0.465138 (neutral:0.000000)), practice (0.465078 (neutral:0.000000)), forms (0.464631 (neutral:0.000000)), abstracts (0.464571 (neutral:0.000000)), tables (0.464452 (neutral:0.000000)), reference (0.463975 (neutral:0.000000)), chance (0.463532 (negative:-0.514926)), facts (0.461842 (negative:-0.284379)), data (0.461784 (negative:-0.284379)), growth (0.460593 (neutral:0.000000)), thousands (0.460309 (negative:-0.214304))

Research (0.944236): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Scientific literature (0.939330): dbpedia | freebase
Science (0.894174): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Primary source (0.775448): dbpedia | freebase
Scientific journal (0.754815): dbpedia | freebase
Scientific method (0.743589): dbpedia | freebase
Academic publishing (0.731363): dbpedia | freebase
Social sciences (0.681958): dbpedia | opencyc

 The Supply of Information to the Scientist: Some Problems of the Present Day
Books, Brochures, and Chapters>Book:  Bernal , John Desmond (1957), The Supply of Information to the Scientist: Some Problems of the Present Day, The Journal of documentation, 1957, 13, 195, Retrieved on 2012-01-12
  • Source Material []
  • Folksonomies:


    15 MAY 2011

     MemexPlex as New Media

    This is a survey of New Media memes throughout history, with comments on each in how it relates to MemexPlex.