Abstract
MR. MITCHELL'S letter in itself fully substantiates the statements made in the article. I do not think he is entitled to say that the article is in any way inaccurate. The substance of the charge is that the abstracts provided by the Society of Public Analysts in no way break fresh ground; they merely duplicate the effort which is expended by the British Chemical Abstracts, for example. Mr. Mitchell's letter shows clearly that the failure of the Society of Public Analysts to co-operate with the Bureau is due, first to a radical misconception as to what an abstract should provide, and second to the narrow specialist outlook which so largely frustrates efforts at cooperation.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rationalisation of Scientific Publication. Nature 135, 791 (1935). https://doi.org/10.1038/135791c0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/135791c0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.