The role of Web-based information in the scholarly communication of chemists: Citation and content analyses of American Chemical Society Journals

2007 ◽  
Vol 58 (13) ◽  
pp. 2055-2065 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecelia Brown
Keyword(s):  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
American Chemical Society ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Content Analyses

A Century of Chemistry: The Role of Chemists and the American Chemical Society

1978 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 127
Author(s):  
Robert P. Multhauf ◽  
Herman Skolnik ◽  
K. M. Reese ◽  
American Chemical Society
Keyword(s):  
American Chemical Society ◽  
Chemical Society

scholarly journals Re-integrating scholarly infrastructure: The ambiguous role of data sharing platforms

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 205395171875668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Christophe Plantin ◽  
Carl Lagoze ◽  
Paul N Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Data Storage ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Management Platform ◽  
Corporate Goals ◽  
Scholarly Communication System ◽  
Infrastructure Studies

Web-based platforms play an increasingly important role in managing and sharing research data of all types and sizes. This article presents a case study of the data storage, sharing, and management platform Figshare. We argue that such platforms are displacing and reconfiguring the infrastructure of norms, technologies, and institutions that underlies traditional scholarly communication. Using a theoretical framework that combines infrastructure studies with platform studies, we show that Figshare leverages the platform logic of core and complementary components to re-integrate a presently splintered scholarly infrastructure. By means of this logic, platforms may provide the path to bring data inside a scholarly communication system still optimized mainly for text publications. Yet the platform strategy also risks turning over critical scientific functions to private firms whose longevity, openness, and corporate goals remain uncertain. It may amplify the existing trend of splintering infrastructures, with attendant effects on equity of service.

History of the Division of Rubber Chemistry of the American Chemical Society

1940 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
E. V. Osberg
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
American Chemical Society ◽  
Chemical Society ◽  
Laboratory Research ◽  
Abstract Reasoning ◽  
Rubber Industry ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of

Abstract After long years of experience, the rubber industry of today has come to realize the true worth of the chemist and the value of the interchange of scientific knowledge and coöperation in research. Early meetings and discussions held by the Division of Rubber Chemistry of the American Chemical Society and its predecessor, the Rubber Section, were influential in dispelling early ideas as to the value of the chemist and in breaking down the barrier of secrecy in the rubber trade. The chemistry of rubber during the past two decades has undergone a tremendous growth, and the Division through its many activities has played an important role in disseminating knowledge that has been gained from laboratory research. THE EARLY RUBBER CHEMIST Before the turn of the twentieth century, the rubber industry had little or no knowledge of the chemist or what he might accomplish. Funds for research were generally withheld, with no quick profits in sight as a result of these expenditures. Among the comments of rubber manufacturers of that time were: “I have no use for chemists, druggists and apothecaries”; “I would give more for the guess of my old superintendent than all the certainties of the best chemist on earth”; “I had employed chemists but their cost to the company had been greater than any value received from their work.” In 1899 the chemist, Arthur H. Marks, invented the alkali reclaiming process, and in 1906 George Oenslager discovered organic accelerators. Rubber technology was being revolutionized by the chemist, and larger profits were in sight. The tight grip on the purse strings became loosened somewhat, and money was being cautiously expended on research. Practical and immediate results which could be translated into hasty profits were the principal aims. Little encouragement was afforded those who wanted to tackle fundamentals. Competition was keen among manufacturers; the rubber industry was growing rapidly, and no time or money was available for abstract reasoning or for “profitless” research enterprises. Rubber manufacturers were quite willing for their chemists to meet with chemists of other companies provided they did not divulge any of the firm's “secrets”. With most of those attending these early meetings in the role of listeners, little was accomplished in furthering the knowledge of rubber chemistry through the exchange of ideas. Such was the problem during the life of the Rubber Section and through the earlier years of its healthier successor, the Division of Rubber Chemistry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document