Part of
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. 4157
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
Berkenkotter, Carol, and Thomas N. Huckin. 1993. “Rethinking genre from a sociological perspective.” Written Communication 10(4), 475–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.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
Chambers, Christopher D. 2013. “Registered Reports: A New Publishing Initiative at Cortex.” Cortex 49 (3): 609–610. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Giltrow, Janet, and Dieter Stein (eds.). 2009. Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, Alan G., and Joseph E. Harmon. 2016. The Internet Revolution in the Sciences and Humanities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.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
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
Herring, Susan C., Lois A. Scheidt, Sabrina Bonus, and Elijah Wright. 2005. “Weblogs as Bridging Genre.” Information, Technology & People 18 (2): 142–171. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie Owen, John. 2007. The Scientific Article in the Age of Digitization. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
McNeill, Laurie. 2003. “Teaching an Old Genre New Tricks: The Diary on the Internet.” Biography 26: 24–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehlenbacher, Ashley R. 2019a. Science Communication Online: Engaging Experts and Publics on the Internet. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019b. “Registered Reports: An Emerging Scientific Research Article Genre.” Written Communication 36 (1): 38–67. DOI logoGoogle 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.. DOI logoGoogle 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
Miller, Carolyn R. 1984. “Genre as Social Action.“ Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 151–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Carolyn R., and Jeanne Fahnestock. 2013. “Genres in Scientific and Technical Rhetoric.” Poroi 9 (1): 12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Carolyn R., and Ashley R. Kelly [now Mehlenbacher] (eds.). 2017. Emerging Genres in New Media Environments. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nosek, Brian, et al. 2015. “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science 349 (6251): aac4716.Google Scholar
Nwogu, Kevin N. 1997. “The Medical Research Paper: Structure and Functions.” English for Specific Purposes 16 (2): 119–138. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schryer, Catherine F. 1993. “Records as Genre.” Written Communication 10: 200–234. DOI logoGoogle 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
2004. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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 (2)

Cited by two other publications

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 24 december 2024. 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.