I was thinking more about my post last week that discusse the publication record of Theophilus Wylie, and was wondering how his record might compare to other scientists of his time. One of the scientists I have also written about in relation to the American Chemical Society, is J. Lawrence Smith, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a founder of the American Chemical Society, professor, and writer of an address on how science should be practiced. I thought it might be interesting to compare their respective scholarly publication records. Needless to say, they are very different. I think there is something important about what these two records of publication tell us about scholarly communication (such as it was in the nineteenth century). These two scholars address very different audiences, and clearly have divergent views on the role of an academic in society.
Smith published about 145 articles in his lifetime. A full listing of them can be found in a tribute to Smith published by Benjamin Silliman (editor of Silliman’s Journal/the American Journal of Science). In reviewing these publications, they seem to be the kind of publications one would expect from a scholar (even today). They are research articles, and they are published in journals intended to be read by other scholars. Most of the publications appear to be in Silliman’s journal (which would make sense because it was the only major American scientific journal at the time). Smith also published in some other chemistry journals and some international journals as well. Thus, in many ways, J. Lawrence Smith seems to be publishing in ways that might be similar to a modern chemist. Importantly, the audience for which Smith seems to be writing is primarily other chemists, most likely those employed at other universities.
Theophilus Wylie was also a chemist; yet, his publication is very different. Altogether, Wylie published just 7 items (at least that I could track down) including:
- Catalogue of the Library of Indiana State University (1842)
- Letter on gold found in Indiana read by Prof. John Frazer, Journal of the Franklin Institute (1850)
- “Teeth and Bones of Elphas Primogenius, Lately Found Near the Western Fork of the White River in Monroe County, Indiana” in American Journal of Science (Silliman’s Journal) (1859).
- “Baccalaureate Discourse to the Graduating Class of Indiana State University” Indianapolis Journal Company, Printers (1859)
- “Andrew Wylie, D. D., First President of Indiana University” in the Indiana School Journal (1860)
- “Interesting Report of Prof. Wylie of the State University.” Indianapolis Journal (1869)
- Indiana University: Its History from 1820, when Founded to 1890 (1891)
The catalogue is not attributed to Wylie, but is likely his work. Only two of the articles were distributed in scientific journals, but seem more similar to his article in the Indianapolis Journal than they do to any kind of research article (like what Smith was publishing). All of Wylie’s articles in both the academic journals and the Indianapolis Journal are really geological reports (keep in mind that mining and geology were linked to chemistry in the nineteenth century, many of Smith’s articles are also on geology) that could be of interest to a fairly broad audience.
Is it possible to draw any conclusions from this very different publication record between Wylie and Smith? I think it is, Wylie seems to be writing for a very different audience, the public. In this case, Wylie seems to be writing for an audience that would include those interested in using the library (library catalog), all people interested in geology (academic and newspaper articles), students at Indiana University (Bacalaureate address), and all people interested in the history of Indiana University (book on the history of Indiana University, and biography of Andrew Wylie). On the other hand, it would seem that Smith sees the role of a scientific author as one which reports only to fellow scientists (which would be in line with what Smith advocates for in his address to the AAAS), Wylie seems to see his role of scientist as a person dedicated to the public.
Therefore, one might question whether these two chemists have competing views about what “scholarly communication” (in this case meaning dissemination of their ideas) should be. Perhaps as we think about reform of the scholarly communication system currently, it might be worth thinking about the seeming division of roles exemplified by both Smith and Wylie. What is the role of the scholar to the public? As I said in my post last week, I am not advocating for a return to Wylie’s point of view, but I do think that scholarship should play a more public role. The publication of Theophilus Wylie shows that prior to the formation of the current scholarly communication system, others thought that way as well, and can perhaps serve as a way for modern academics to think about the role of publicly disseminating their ideas.
Image Credit: (Left, Theophilus Wylie, image from https://wyliehouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/t-a-wylie-4.jpg and right, J. Lawrence Smith, image from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/John_Lawrence_Smith_by_Tony_Rogue%2C_1854.jpg)