Title: Broken pieces of fact
Description: Over the course of the nineteenth century the modern scientific journal emerged to become a competitor with, and eventually to take the place of, the scientific society and academy as the principal institutional site for the representation, certification, and registration of natural knowledge. This dissertation examines the evolution of this new serial format as it merged several pre-existing, discrete genres, and it gives an account of the forces that established its central place in the modern scientific enterprise. Part I follows the processes by which scientific authority diffused out into the marketplace of the periodical press, as scientists gradually invested certain print formats, sometimes awkwardly, with functions--related to certification of knowledge, arbitration of priority, and assessment of professional qualifications--for demarcating scientific authority and measuring scientific achievement that had once been the putative territory of the societies and academies.

Part II follows scientists in Britain and France in the decades following the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871) as they attempted to affirm their role in their respective states' efforts to compete against the rising industrial and political superiority of the German empire. This entailed imagining new forms of organization and new strategies for representing consensus, and these scientists took the rational management of the scientific literature to be crucial to these tasks. In Britain, this was largely a struggle to centralize what they called the "machinery of science." In France the focus was on strategies of controlled decentralization and democratization. At the heart of both movements, however, was the same deceptively modest problematic: the literature search . These efforts to establish a managerial order of knowledge in print, increasingly played out on an international stage by the turn of the twentieth century, by no means fully achieved the aims their promoters set for them. But through their detailed excavations of, and reflections on, the nature of the relationship between authoritative knowledge, print, and the publics of science, they consolidated views about the rightful role of authoritative periodical publication in safeguarding objectivity, openness, and reliable consensus in the scientific polity. These are views that remain central to public representations of the scientific enterprise.