Cover not available

In:Science Communication on the Internet: Old genres meet new genres
Edited by María José Luzón and Carmen Pérez-Llantada
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 308] 2019
► pp. 41–57

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 3
The case of the scientific research article and lessons concerning genre change online

Published online: 4 December 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.308.03meh
Abstract
Although the apparatus surrounding the scientific research article (SRA) has evolved to include hyperlinks, comments, and supplementary data in online repositories, the genre itself seems stubbornly committed to its form. In itself, the lack of change is an important and notable case for genre scholarship. Recently, however, the replication crisis in the psychological and life sciences has created an exigence for genre change. The “Registered Report” is an emerging genre of SRA that responds to issues raised by the replication crisis that we will examine in this chapter. Rather than characterizing the genre in linguistic terms alone, we advance a rhetorical inquiry into the recurrent rhetorical situation to which this permutation on the scientific research article responds.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Evolution of the scientific research article genre and the evolution of online genres of science communication
  • 3.The replication crisis: An exigence for genre change in the scientific research article
  • 4.Conclusions
  • References
References (39)
References
Ball, Philip. 2017. “It’s Not Just You: Science Papers Are Getting Harder to Read.” Nature, 30 March 2017. Last accessed June 15, 2019. [URL]
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, Carol, and Thomas N. Huckin. 1993. “Rethinking genre from a sociological perspective.” Written Communication 10(4), 475–509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casper, Christian F. 2016. “The Online Research Article and the Ecological Basis of New Digital Genres.” In Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age, ed. by Alan G. Gross, and Jonathan Buehl, 77–98. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chambers, Christopher D. 2013. “Registered Reports: A New Publishing Initiative at Cortex.” Cortex 49 (3): 609–610. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chambers, Christopher D., Zoltan Dienes, Robert D. McIntosh, Pia Rotshtein and Klaus Willmes. 2015. “Registered Reports: Realigning Incentives in Scientific Publishing.” Cortex 66: A1–A2. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chawla, Dalmeet S. 2017. “Taking on Chemistry’s Reproducibility Problem.” Chemistry World, 20 March 2017. Last accessed June 15, 2019. [URL]
Fahnestock, Jeanne. 1986. “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts.” Written Communication 3 (3): 275–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana. 2012. “Where Do Web Genres Come from? The Case of Blogs.” In Evolving Genres in Web-mediated Communication, ed. by Sandra Campagna, Giuliana Garzone, Cornelia Ilie, and Elizabeth Rowley-Jolivet, 217–242. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giltrow, Janet, and Dieter Stein (eds.). 2009. Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gross, Alan G., and Joseph E. Harmon. 2016. The Internet Revolution in the Sciences and Humanities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gross, Alan G., Joseph E. Harmon, and Michael Reidy. 2002. Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harmon, Joseph E. 2016. “The Scientific Journal: Making It New?” In Science and the Internet: Communicating Knowledge in a Digital Age, ed. by Alan G. Gross, and Jonathan Buehl, 33–58. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C., Lois A. Scheidt, Sabrina Bonus, and Elijah Wright. 2005. “Weblogs as Bridging Genre.” Information, Technology & People 18 (2): 142–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaplan, Sarah, and Joanna Radin. 2011. “Bounding an Emerging Technology: Para-Scientific Media and the Drexler-Smalley Debate about Nanotechnology.” Social Studies of Science 41 (4): 457–485. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelly [now Mehlenbacher], Ashley R., and Meagan Kittle Autry. 2013. “Access, Accommodation, and Science: Knowledge in an ‘Open’ World.” First Monday 18 (6): 10pp. Last accessed June 15, 2019. [URL]
Kittle Autry, Meagan. 2013. Genre Change Online: Open Access and the Scientific Research Article Genre. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Li-Juan, and Guang-Chun Ge. 2009. “Genre Analysis: Structural and Linguistic Evolution of the English-Medium Medical Research Article (1985–2004).” English for Specific Purposes 28 (2): 93–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackenzie Owen, John. 2007. The Scientific Article in the Age of Digitization. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNeill, Laurie. 2003. “Teaching an Old Genre New Tricks: The Diary on the Internet.” Biography 26: 24–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mehlenbacher, Ashley R. 2019a. Science Communication Online: Engaging Experts and Publics on the Internet. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019b. “Registered Reports: An Emerging Scientific Research Article Genre.” Written Communication 36 (1): 38–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
forthcoming 2019c. “Exploring Conversations about Science in New Media.” In Routledge Handbook of Language and Science, ed. by Lynda Walsh and David Gruber (in press). New York, NY: Routledge.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mehlenbacher, Ashley R., and Carolyn R. Miller. 2017. “Intersections: Scientific and Parascientific Communication on the Internet.” In Landmark Essays on the Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, 2nd edition, ed. by Randy A. Harris, 239–260. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Carolyn R. 1984. “Genre as Social Action.“ Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 151–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Carolyn R., and Jeanne Fahnestock. 2013. “Genres in Scientific and Technical Rhetoric.” Poroi 9 (1): 12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Carolyn R., and Ashley R. Kelly [now Mehlenbacher] (eds.). 2017. Emerging Genres in New Media Environments. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Carolyn R., and Dawn Shepherd. 2004. “Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog.” In Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and the Culture of Weblogs, ed. by Laura Gurak, Smiljana Antonijevic, Laurie Johnson, Clancy Ratliff, and Jessica Reyman, 1–21. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Libraries. Last accessed June 15, 2019. [URL]
. 2009. “Questions for Genre Theory from the Blogosphere.” In Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre, ed. by Janet Giltrow, and Dieter Stein, 263–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nosek, Brian, et al. 2015. “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science 349 (6251): aac4716.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nwogu, Kevin N. 1997. “The Medical Research Paper: Structure and Functions.” English for Specific Purposes 16 (2): 119–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidt, Charles W. 2009. “Communication Gap: The Disconnect between what Scientists Say and what the Public Hears.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (12): A548–A551. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schryer, Catherine F. 1993. “Records as Genre.” Written Communication 10: 200–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulson, Michael. 2018. “Science’s “Reproducibility Crisis” Is Being Used as Political Ammunition.” Wired, 20 April 2018. Last accessed June 15, 2019. [URL]
Somers, James. 2018. “The Scientific Paper Is Obsolete.” The Atlantic, 5 April 2018. Last accessed June 15, 2019. [URL]
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yong, Ed. 2010. “On Jargon, and why It Matters in Science Writing.” National Geographic, 24 November 2010. Last accessed June 15, 2019. [URL]
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Fahnestock, Jeanne
2025. The Controversy behind the Controversies: Scientific Discourse in the Twenty-First Century. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 55:3 ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo
Rowley-Jolivet, Elizabeth & Shirley Carter-Thomas
2023. Research goes digital: A challenge for genre analysis?. ASp 84 ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Nahotko, Marek
2020. Samopoznanie w komunikacji naukowej .. Przegląd Biblioteczny 88:3 ► pp. 347 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue