This paper examines how scientific articles aim to secure scientific objectivity. It begins by reconstructing the historical and rhetorical context of the research paper as the dominant medium of scientific communication. The central claim is that the paper’s rhetorical-editorial features—IMRaD structure, clarity, suppression of subjectivity, and stylistic flattening— seek to reinforce the credibility and legitimacy of science while also functioning as evaluative criteria within the publish-or-p…
Read moreThis paper examines how scientific articles aim to secure scientific objectivity. It begins by reconstructing the historical and rhetorical context of the research paper as the dominant medium of scientific communication. The central claim is that the paper’s rhetorical-editorial features—IMRaD structure, clarity, suppression of subjectivity, and stylistic flattening— seek to reinforce the credibility and legitimacy of science while also functioning as evaluative criteria within the publish-or-perish regime. The thesis defended is that the conception of the article as an objective vehicle for producing and communicating knowledge has persisted over time and, rather than weakening, has been reinforced by editorial transformations, impact metrics, and movements such as open science, which together consolidate its centrality. The argument is supported by historical cases and theoretical contributions from historians and philosophers of science.
