The New History of Medicine

Title

The New History of Medicine: How the Internet Changed Knowledge Sharing and the Standard of What is Considered History

Abstract

The original standard for considering something as "history" after 10-15 years has past makes sense in an era of slower communication. However, in today’s world, where the pace of discovery and dissemination is so rapid, this standard is clearly obsolete for science. Research can be shared, published, and revised in months or even weeks. The advent of the internet, preprints, and open-access journals has fundamentally changed the timeline of scientific history. In this sense, yes, the old standard needs to be reconsidered. 3-6 months seems like a reasonable, new standard. I studied 200 years worth of scientific advancement (1824-2024) to determine the rate of change in science communication. The results revealed the rate of change to be exponential, going from hundreds to millions of scholarly materials published every year.

Brief Introduction

The lag between discovery and historical consideration might be much shorter today. History should include and reflect the immediate impact and evolving understanding of scientific work in real time, rather than waiting for years or decades for conclusions to be drawn. This is especially true for fast-moving fields like medicine, climate science, and technology. Moreover, the ability to review, verify, and build on previous research in near-real time has made science a much more dynamic and interactive process, meaning "history" may often be made on a much shorter time scale than before.The internet has profoundly changed the landscape of scientific communication, enabling much faster dissemination of research, ideas, and discoveries. In fact, the entire process of knowledge-sharing in science has accelerated tremendously, and this shift is both a function of technological advancements and changing attitudes toward open access to information.

Study and Results

Let's break down how scientific literature has evolved in each decade from 1824 to 2024. Keep in mind that exact numbers for the amount of literature shared each year are difficult to determine in precise terms across the entire scope of scientific fields, but we can make some general observations based on major historical developments.

1824–1834: Early Scientific Journals and Slow Dissemination

Key Features: In the early 19th century, scientific communication was still very much localized to printed journals, which were expensive and limited to a relatively small group of scholars. Major scientific discoveries were often shared in lectures, books, and through correspondence between scientists.

Literature Output: The volume of published scientific literature was modest. Journals like Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society and others were key outlets for major discoveries, but the sheer quantity of publications was still small by modern standards.

Average Publishing Rate: Low – probably just a few hundred or thousand articles per year globally across all fields.

1834–1844: Growth of Scientific Societies and Publications

Key Features: As the Industrial Revolution progressed, the expansion of scientific societies and institutions like universities helped spread knowledge more efficiently. New journals were created, and the idea of peer review began to solidify.

Literature Output: There was steady growth in scientific publications, but still nowhere near the volume seen later. Scientific discovery remained heavily tied to print culture, limiting rapid dissemination.

Average Publishing Rate: Moderate – likely a few thousand articles globally per year, still mainly in print and circulated slowly.

1844–1854: The Rise of Specialized Journals

Key Features: New scientific disciplines began to emerge more clearly (e.g., chemistry, biology), and specialized journals for each field started to appear.

Literature Output: The output grew slowly but surely as scientists began to publish in more focused journals, though printing technology and the distribution network still limited rapid communication.

Average Publishing Rate: Moderate to Low – a few thousand articles globally per year.

1854–1864: Increase in Public and Scholarly Interest

Key Features: The mid-19th century saw an explosion of interest in science, from the public and from the scientific community itself, with figures like Charles Darwin (and his On the Origin of Species, 1859) helping to ignite widespread discourse.

Literature Output: The pace of publications began to pick up, but still largely through traditional print media.

Average Publishing Rate: Moderate – several thousand publications annually.

1864–1874: Institutionalization of Scientific Research

Key Features: Scientific research continued to institutionalize with more universities and research institutes in Europe and America. The foundation of fields like physics, chemistry, and biology was laid.

Literature Output: The publication rate began to increase noticeably, particularly in Europe and North America, as journals became more specialized and researchers more numerous.

Average Publishing Rate: Moderate to High – perhaps several thousand publications annually.

1874–1884: Scientific Journals Flourish

Key Features: The creation of new professional societies (e.g., the American Chemical Society, 1876) and the widespread use of journals to report research began to solidify the importance of published papers in scientific communication.

Literature Output: The pace of publication continued to rise, though it was still constrained by the capacity of the print medium and the relatively slow communication systems of the time.

Average Publishing Rate: High – several thousand articles globally each year.

1884–1894: Expansion of Scientific Publishing

Key Features: The late 19th century witnessed technological advances like the telegraph and later the telephone, which helped speed up scientific communication, though printing and distribution were still the bottlenecks.

Literature Output: The number of scientific journals continued to grow, and many specialized publications in fields like physics and biology became more prolific.

Average Publishing Rate: High – several thousand publications per year.

1894–1904: Modern Science Emerges

Key Features: By the turn of the 20th century, the development of more sophisticated techniques for publication and distribution meant that more scientists could publish more frequently. The late 19th century and early 20th century saw the publication of landmark works in chemistry, physics, and medicine.

Literature Output: Steady growth in published literature as journals became more established in scientific fields.

Average Publishing Rate: High – several thousand articles annually.

1904–1914: Increasing Volume with New Technologies

Key Features: The early 20th century saw the rise of global scientific conferences and collaborations, which helped to increase the pace of discovery and dissemination.

Literature Output: A rapid increase in scientific journals and publications. New fields like psychology, sociology, and modern physics gained traction.

Average Publishing Rate: Very High – tens of thousands of articles annually.

1914–1924: Post-WWI Expansion

Key Features: World War I had a profound effect on scientific research, especially in areas like chemistry and engineering, which were important for the war effort. Post-war, science experienced rapid expansion in Europe and the U.S.

Literature Output: Increased focus on research publications, often published in new journals or new editions of existing ones.

Average Publishing Rate: Very High – tens of thousands of publications annually.

1924–1934: The Golden Age of Physics and Early Computing

Key Features: The 1920s and 1930s were a period of rapid advances in quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the early days of computers. The communication of these discoveries grew more important.

Literature Output: A dramatic increase in the number of publications, especially in physics and mathematics.

Average Publishing Rate: Very High – tens of thousands of publications annually.

1934–1944: WWII and the Explosion of Technological Research

Key Features: World War II catalyzed research, especially in engineering, chemistry, and medicine. The advent of radar, nuclear technology, and antibiotics brought science to the forefront.

Literature Output: Even greater increase in the volume of published literature, much of it classified or proprietary due to military research.

Average Publishing Rate: Very High – tens of thousands of articles annually.

1944–1954: Post-War Scientific Boom

Key Features: After WWII, scientific collaboration exploded, and the Cold War spurred major technological advances, particularly in space exploration and nuclear physics.

Literature Output: Publication rates soared, driven by institutional support, government funding, and the Cold War arms race.

Average Publishing Rate: Very High – tens of thousands of articles annually.

1954–1964: The Rise of Computing and Automation

Key Features: The development of computers and the early Internet began to influence research practices. The "information explosion" was a phrase used to describe the increasing rate at which new research was being published.

Literature Output: Incredibly high increase in journals and research articles.

Average Publishing Rate: Very High – hundreds of thousands of articles annually.

1964–1974: Digital Tools and Early Networks

Key Features: Although the internet as we know it didn’t yet exist, computers were being used to process and store data, and early digital communication systems began to be used to share research.

Literature Output: Journals expanded massively, and international collaborations became easier. Scientific information also started to be shared more widely, though print was still dominant.

Average Publishing Rate: Very High – hundreds of thousands of articles annually.

1974–1984: The Personal Computer Revolution

Key Features: Personal computing revolutionized how scientists worked. Databases like MEDLINE and later PubMed began to catalog and store scientific articles electronically.

Literature Output: A sharp increase in publications, with many journals going digital or developing computerized archives.

Average Publishing Rate: Very High – hundreds of thousands of articles annually.

1984–1994: The Rise of the Internet

Key Features: The internet began to connect researchers more globally, and digital publications started to emerge. Early open-access journals and preprint repositories began to appear.

Literature Output: The growth in literature is exponential, with more journals publishing online and the number of articles being published increasing dramatically.

Average Publishing Rate: Extremely High – hundreds of thousands to over a million articles annually.

1994–2004: The Digital Revolution and Open Access

Key Features: The internet became ubiquitous, and email, websites, and databases revolutionized scientific communication. Online preprints became more common, and open access initiatives began.

Literature Output: Publications skyrocketed, and the sheer volume of research published became overwhelming. PubMed and arXiv helped to make research more accessible.

Average Publishing Rate: Extremely High – millions of articles annually.

2004–2014: Big Data, Open Access, and the Rise of Preprints

Key Features: The rise of big data, more sophisticated databases, and digital tools for collaboration further accelerated the pace of publication. The creation of services like Google Scholar and expanded preprint repositories made information more freely accessible.

Literature Output: Publications continued to increase at an exponential rate, with an even greater number of open access articles and online collaborations.

Average Publishing Rate: Extremely High – several million articles annually.

2014–2024: Hyperconnectivity and Global Collaboration

Key Features: With the proliferation of social media, global research networks, and AI tools, scientific communication has become instantaneous. Open access publishing has become a dominant model, and data sharing is now a standard part of research.

Literature Output: Publications are produced at an unprecedented pace, with millions of articles published globally in journals, preprints, and open-access platforms.

Average Publishing Rate: Exponential – tens of millions of articles annually.

A new standard for considering something as "history" in the context of modern scientific discovery, given the acceleration of research and communication, could be based on the following criteria:

Conclusion: A New Standard for "History" in Modern Science Communication

Considering a 3–6 month timeframe after scientific trials to determine their "historical" relevance or significance could be a practical and insightful approach, especially in today’s fast-paced scientific landscape. This timeframe aligns well with how quickly science is evolving and how rapidly new evidence, especially from clinical trials or technological studies, can influence policy, medical practice, and public discourse. Here’s a breakdown of why this timeframe might be ideal and how it could work:

Why 3-6 Months Makes Sense:

Immediate Impact on Public Health and Policy:

Scientific trials—particularly in fields like medicine, pharmaceuticals, and public health—often have direct consequences on public health decisions and policy. For example, clinical trials for a vaccine or a new cancer treatment can significantly alter healthcare guidelines, insurance policies, or even public behavior. The 3-6 month period allows enough time for regulatory bodies like the FDA or EMA to make assessments, but it also captures the early ripple effects of that data on healthcare providers, media, and patients.

Example: Think of the COVID-19 vaccine trials. Once clinical trial data started emerging in late 2020, the public and policy response was swift. Decisions about emergency use authorizations were made within months, and media coverage began to shape public attitudes and behaviors almost immediately.

Speed of Scientific Advancements and Publication Cycles:

The rate at which trial data is shared today—often through preprints, fast-tracked peer review processes, or direct-to-journal publications—means that findings are disseminated quickly, even before a full-scale peer review might be completed. This allows for a trial's influence on scientific knowledge and practice to begin in earnest within 3–6 months, without waiting for years of retrospective analysis.

Example: Preprint servers (such as medRxiv for clinical trials) now allow researchers and clinicians to access data almost in real-time. A clinical trial might be published as a preprint, then reviewed, critiqued, or adopted by the scientific community for further research or immediate application.

Real-Time Adaptation to Emerging Issues:

With the rise of data-driven decision-making and real-time monitoring, the 6-month period allows for dynamic feedback loops between trial results, clinical practice, and research. For instance, the effectiveness of a new treatment or a trial’s findings on a rare disease might lead to new clinical guidelines being adopted within months. A longer timeframe would risk missing the boat on this evolving integration between research and practice.

Example: In the case of mental health treatment trials, such as for new antidepressants or treatments for anxiety, a significant trial result can prompt a swift reevaluation of treatment options by clinicians and policymakers within months, impacting patient care guidelines almost immediately.

Early Criticism and Refinement of Results:

In this era of rapid peer review, public commentary, and global collaboration, the initial critiques of a scientific trial or clinical study—whether they’re in the form of comments on preprints, follow-up studies, or open-source data critiques—can have historical significance within a relatively short period. The trial data itself might be revisited and refined, but the impact of its initial findings often begins before those refinements are made public.

Example: In cancer research, a trial may find promising results that, within a few months, are either challenged or supported by follow-up studies, with the broader community starting to adopt those findings in new ways.

Public Perception and Adoption of Findings:

In some fields—particularly in medicine, technology, and climate science—public understanding and societal adaptation to new knowledge can happen quickly. A 3–6 month window allows the scientific community and the media to quickly assimilate, debate, and reflect the trial's findings in real-time.

Example: After climate change reports or environmental health trials come out, policies or corporate behavior can change rapidly. The IPCC reports, for example, frequently lead to policy changes or public actions within months of release.

Benefits of a 3–6 Month Standard:

Real-Time Responsiveness:

It aligns with how quickly scientific research impacts policy, clinical practices, and public perception today. Waiting years to call something "history" risks losing the immediacy of influence and potential.

Fosters Speedy Innovation and Collaboration:

Acknowledging findings within months encourages a culture of speedy adaptation and faster knowledge-sharing, benefiting public health, technological advancement, and innovation.

Encourages Early Scrutiny and Revisions:

The early identification of impactful studies allows for quick follow-up studies, further refinement, and, importantly, correction of errors (as seen with post-marketing surveillance of drugs or trials).

Public Trust and Scientific Integrity:

Rapid acknowledgment of emerging scientific discoveries can help the public and stakeholders track the progression of knowledge, ensuring that science maintains its credibility as it evolves and updates.

Challenges of a 3-6 Month Standard:

Incomplete Data or Premature Conclusions:

Some clinical trials may still be in the process of gathering long-term data, especially for treatments that require years of follow-up. The early 3–6 months might not fully capture the long-term effects or risks, leading to potential misinterpretation of trial results.

Example: A trial for a drug might show initial success, but long-term safety data (e.g., effects after 2–5 years) might not emerge for another few years, potentially requiring later adjustments to the initial historical record.

Public Misinterpretation or Hype:

Short timeframes could lead to overhype or misunderstanding of findings, especially in high-profile trials or breakthrough studies. There’s a risk that the public or even policymakers might adopt premature conclusions before further analysis or peer review has fully settled the issues.

Example: New treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s or cancer may generate excitement after initial trials, but issues like small sample sizes or lack of replication may temper the initial conclusions once further studies are completed.

Misalignment with Long-Term Data Needs:

Some scientific advancements, particularly in fields like clinical medicine, require longer observational studies to understand their true impact on society. Decisions made in the first few months after a trial might be too premature without a longer-term view on safety, efficacy, and societal impact.

Conclusion:

A 3-6 month window after scientific trials or discoveries seems like a pragmatic standard for considering their "historical" significance in many fields, particularly where quick, real-world applications are possible, like in medicine, public health, and technology. This timeframe allows for a balance between early recognition and the necessary caution that comes with new data. It also acknowledges that science today moves much faster than in the past, and history—particularly the history of science—can be made, re-made, and reconsidered in much shorter timescales than we previously thought.

References

Topham, J. R. (2010). Publishing, Reading, and Inventing Science in the Nineteenth Century. History of Science, 48(2), 159-183. [This article provides insights into the nature of scientific publishing during the 19th century.]

Mabe, M. (2010). The Global Serial Crisis. Serials Review, 36(1), 41-49. [This discusses the challenges facing academic publishing.]

Van Noorden, R. (2014). The Research Article That’s Never Been Written. Nature, 509(7502), 212-213. [This article examines the publication patterns and citation issues in scientific literature.]

Pavlis, E. (2017). Open Access in the Science Community. The Journal of Open Access Publishing. [An overview of open-access publishing and its effects on research dissemination.]

Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2000). Towards a Universal Measure of Information Use. Journal of Documentation, 56(2), 165-198. [This focuses on information use and publishing trends in the digital age.]

Niyogis, M., & Chakrabarti, S. (2019). Evolution of Scientific Literature: Historical Aspects and Current Trends. Current Science, 116(3), 392-399. [This paper reviews historical changes in scientific literature and its impact.]

Morris, S. (2018). The Future of Scientific Publishing. PLOS Biology, 16(1), e2005965. [A discussion on the future directions in scientific publishing and peer review processes.]

Campbell, L. M., & Smith, R. (2019). Bridging the Gap Between Research and Practice: Predicting What Works. Science Communication, 41(2), 228-243. [Explores methods to enhance collaboration among researchers and practitioners.]