Search

In 1921 Oliver Lodge defended Philosophical Magazine against charges of mismanagement from the National Union of Scientific Workers. They alleged that its editors performed little editorial work, the bulk being done by the publishers, Taylor & Francis. Lodge reassured Nature's readers that the journal did consult its editors, and suggested 'a conservative attitude towards old-established organs is wise; and that it is possible to over-organise things into lifelessness.' The paper explores Lodge's response by considering the editorial arrangements at Philosophical Magazine. Founded in 1798, it remained remarkably unchanged and so appeared old-fashioned when compared with its closest rivals, Proceedings of the Royal Society and Proceedings of the Physical Society. We argue that for Lodge the management of Philosophical Magazine gave it the flexibility and independence required to sustain the kind of physics, also open to accusations of obsolescence, in which he believed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay analyzes the processes behind the publication of physics papers in two British journals in the 1920s: the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series A and the Philosophical Magazine. On the surface, it looked as though the Philosophical Magazine was managed very informally, while the Proceedings had in place a seemingly rigid system of committee approval and peer review. This essay shows, however, that in practice the two journals were both influenced by networks of expertise that afforded small groups of physicists considerable control over the content of these prestigious scientific publications. This study explores the nature of peer review, suggesting how a historical approach can contribute to contemporary debates. In studying these relationships, the essay also considers the interplay of "classical" and "modern" ideas and physicists in 1920s Britain and cautions against an anachronistic approach to this classification [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the first half of the twentieth century, dramatic developments in physics came to be viewed as revolutionary, apparently requiring a complete overthrow of previous theories. British physicists were keen to promote quantum physics and relativity theory as exciting and new, but the rhetoric of revolution threatened science's claim to stability and its prestigious connections with Isaac Newton. This was particularly problematic in the first decades of the twentieth century, within the broader context of political turmoil, world war, and the emergence of modernist art and literature. This article examines how physicists responded to their cultural and political environment and worked to maintain disciplinary connections with Isaac Newton, emphasizing the importance of both the old and the new. In doing so they attempted to make the physics 'revolution' more palatable to a British public seeking a sense of permanence in a rapidly changing world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]