↓ Skip to main content

Marginalia, commonplaces, and correspondence: Scribal exchange in early modern science

Overview of attention for article published in Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Marginalia, commonplaces, and correspondence: Scribal exchange in early modern science
Published in
Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences, February 2011
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.12.003
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In recent years, historians of science have increasingly turned their attention to the "print culture" of early modern science. These studies have revealed that printing, as both a technology and a social and economic system, structured the forms and meanings of natural knowledge. Yet in early modern Europe, naturalists, including John Aubrey, John Evelyn, and John Ray, whose work is discussed in this paper, often shared and read scientific texts in manuscript either before or in lieu of printing. Scribal exchange, exemplified in the circulation of writings like commonplace books, marginalia, manuscript treatises, and correspondence, was the primary means by which communities of naturalists constructed scientific knowledge. Print and manuscript were necessary partners. Manuscript fostered close collaboration, and could be circulated relatively cheaply; but, unlike print, it could not reliably secure priority or survival for posterity. Naturalists approached scribal and print communication strategically, choosing the medium that best suited their goals at any given moment. As a result, print and scribal modes of disseminating information, constructing natural knowledge, and organizing communities developed in tandem. Practices typically associated with print culture manifested themselves in scribal texts and exchanges, and vice versa. "Print culture" cannot be hived off from "scribal culture." Rather, in their daily jottings and exchanges, naturalists inhabited, and produced, one common culture of communication.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 36%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Librarian 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 4 29%
Computer Science 2 14%
Social Sciences 2 14%
Philosophy 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 2 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 July 2012.
All research outputs
#24,754,523
of 34,361,833 outputs
Outputs from Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences
#441
of 609 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,953
of 257,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,361,833 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 609 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 257,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.