Sfetcu, Nicolae (2025). ”The Books on the History of Science: Global Evolution, Romanian Contributions, and Perspectives”, in Index Academic, I 2025, DOI: 10.58679/IA18613, https://www.indexacademic.ro/pdf/the-books-on-the-history-of-science/

Abstract

The field of history of science has evolved from a niche scholarly pursuit into a robust, global discipline. This article traces the development of books about the history of science – from early chronicles of scientific achievement to modern, critical analyses – examining their historical evolution, present state, and future directions. We highlight key intellectual themes (such as the internalist vs. externalist debate, the relationship between science and society, and the recent push for decolonizing the history of science) and the parallel evolution of publishing practices (academic presses, translations, and digital formats). While offering a global overview, we place special emphasis on Romanian contributions and developments, illustrating how Romanian scholars both influenced and mirrored international trends. Major historiographical shifts are discussed, including the transition from celebratory, Eurocentric narratives to more contextual and inclusive approaches. We also analyze how the publishing of history of science has changed – from early academic treatises to contemporary open-access digital monographs – and explore future trends in disseminating historical scholarship. By examining past and present practices, the article sheds light on the future of history of science books, emphasizing increasing interdisciplinarity and accessibility.

Keywords: books, history of science, science, Romania, Romanian Academy, evolution

License CC BY-SA 4.0

The Books on the History of Science: Global Evolution, Romanian Contributions, and Perspectives

Ing. fiz. Nicolae Sfetcu, MPhil[1]
nicolae@sfetcu.com

[1] Researcher – Division of History of Science (DIS)/Romanian Committee of History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (CRIFST), of the Romanian Academy, ORCID: 0000-0002-0162-9973, Web of Science Researcher ID V-1416-2017

Introduction

Books on the history of science are a window into how we understand the development of scientific knowledge over time. The genre has expanded from the isolated accounts of scientists and polymaths into a professionalized academic field. The historiography of science today is a global endeavor, involving scholars from many countries and perspectives. This article provides an overview of that evolution, with a focus on the Romanian context, reflecting on how Romanian historians of science have contributed to and benefited from broader trends. I will first outline the historical trajectory of the history of scientific writing, identifying key intellectual themes and debates that have shaped the field. I then highlight Romanian contributions—from early twentieth-century pioneers to institutional developments within the Romanian Academy. Next, I assess the current state of the history of scientific publishing, noting how academic publishing practices (such as university presses and translations) and the emphasis on content have changed. Finally, we consider future directions, including the impact of digital formats, open access initiatives, and interdisciplinary approaches that promise to reshape how the history of science is researched and communicated. Throughout, I cite influential works and scholarly reviews to ground the analysis in established research. The aim is to treat the evolution of history of science books as a reflection of changing historiographical philosophies and publishing paradigms, demonstrating how the field is continually reinventing itself in response to new questions and new audiences.

Historical context

Early narratives and foundations of the field

Writing about the history of science has roots that stretch back centuries, although early accounts were often incorporated into larger historical or philosophical works rather than as independent studies. Enlightenment thinkers began chronicling scientific progress with an air of optimism, viewing the rise of Newtonian science as heralding an age of reason and human improvement:

“This struggle began in the 18th century during the Enlightenment, when a long-term trend began to develop, based on the optimistic judgement that with Newton science had come of age and begun to explain, and promise the domination of, nature. This trend identified science, especially Newtonian science, with socio-political reform and human progress.” (Schuster 1995, 222)

In the 18th and 19th centuries, such narratives tended to portray science as a steady march of progress led by great men, closely tied to the ideals of the Enlightenment. By the mid-19th century, we see dedicated works such as William Whewell’s History of the Inductive Sciences (1837) and, later, the efforts of Pierre Duhem and others, which attempted to systematically chart scientific development. These early books often took an optimistic (whiggish) approach to progress, treating the past through the lens of the present—celebrating past science as inevitably leading to the superior present.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the history of science began to emerge as a more distinct academic field. Pioneers such as George Sarton sought to professionalize the discipline: Sarton founded the journal Isis in 1913 and undertook the monumental Introduction to the History of Science (1927–1948), which aimed to document science in all civilizations. This era established the practice of rigorous archival research in the history of science and saw the first university courses on the subject. Early institutional milestones included the formation of the International Academy of the History of Science in 1928, and the organization of international congresses (the second of which, in London in 1931, featured a groundbreaking Soviet contribution, as discussed below). By the 1930s, the history of science had provided forums for scholars to debate not only scientific facts but also how to interpret the development of science.

A significant intellectual shift during this period was the questioning of triumphalist narratives. In 1931, Soviet physicist-historian Boris Hessen presented a landmark paper, “The Socio-Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia”, at the Second International Congress of the History of Science in London. (Wikipedia 2025) Hessen’s analysis postulated that Newton’s scientific work was motivated by, and satisfied, the economic and technical needs of 17th-century England. (Wikipedia 2025)

“Society exists and develops as an organic whole. In order to ensure its existence and development society must develop production.5 In the social production of their life men enter into definite relations that are independent of their will. These relations correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces.

”The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness ” (Hessen 2009)

This Marxist interpretation – linking scientific innovation to social and economic forces – became fundamental in historiography, heralding modern studies of scientific revolutions and the sociology of science. (Wikipedia 2025) It challenged the prevailing view of science as an isolated, purely intellectual endeavor, and effectively launched what became known as an “externalist” approach to the history of science. (Graham 1985). The focus was no longer solely on the internal logic of scientific ideas; the context in which science emerged now required attention.

Internalist vs. externalist approaches

By the mid-20th century, a major historiographical debate had crystallized: internalism vs. externalism. Internalist historians argued that to understand the development of science, one should focus on the internal content of scientific thought—the concepts, experiments, and logic that drive discovery—largely independent of external influences. (Schuster 1995, 222). Classical internalists such as Alexandre Koyré exemplified this approach by examining the evolution of scientific ideas (for example, Koyré’s studies of Galileo and Newton emphasized changes in metaphysical and mathematical notions). In contrast, externalist historians insisted that science was inextricable from its social, economic, and political context and that it must “constantly explain the inside by means of reference to the social, economic and political” surrounding science: “These internalist/externalist positions get recycled and recycled. These two classic viewpoints have been at odds with each other since the 1930s on into the 70s” (Schuster 1995, 222) Externalists—often influenced by Marxist or sociological thought, such as J. D. Bernal in Britain or Hessen in the Soviet Union—described scientific development as responsive to societal needs and power structures.

This internalist/externalist dichotomy defined much of the historiography of science from the 1930s to the 1970s, with vigorous debates between the two camps. (Schuster 1995, 222) For example, Bernal’s Science in History (1954) – a four-volume opus – was the first comprehensive attempt to analyze the mutual relations between science and society throughout history, explicitly advocating an externalist perspective. (Bernal 2011) Bernal and his contemporaries in the Science and Society movement argued that understanding the past of science required seeing it as a social enterprise, subject to economic imperatives, war, class structure, and more. On the other hand, scholars such as Koyré or Butterfield warned against reading the history of science solely through current social lenses, fearing a loss of focus on the unique rational and conceptual development of science itself.

Over time, historians have come to recognize that this was a false dichotomy – that the most insightful histories often integrate internal intellectual analysis with external context. Indeed, by the end of the twentieth century, professional historians of science had largely moved beyond the rigid internalist vs. externalist divide. They increasingly recognized that scientific knowledge grows through a dynamic interaction of ideas and context. However, the legacy of this debate was extremely productive: it broadened the scope of the history of science. No longer limited to the description of discoveries and theories, the field opened to examining science in relation to institutions, economics, culture, and values. As one observer has noted, these “two classical views have been at odds… since the 1930s,” but contemporary historiography tends to synthesize them, examining both the content of science and the contexts in which it is produced:

“Ultimately historiography of science is about these same issues and the debates, and is fueled by the same concerns. The classic positions, Internalist and Externalist, are not positions that professional historiographers count as important any more. These ideas have been outgrown. But, these positions still exist in wider society, especially in the media, in cultural commonplaces, and in policy-makers and politicians minds..” (Schuster 1995, 222)

Post-war developments and new approaches

After World War II, the history of science became institutionalized and further diversified. The discipline gained academic legitimacy: courses, specialized journals, and professional societies proliferated. Importantly, the community of historians of science became more international. In 1947, under the encouragement of UNESCO, the International Union for the History of Science (now IUHPST/DHST – International Union for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology) was founded, with significant involvement from scholars from all over the world. A Romanian scholar, Petre Sergescu, played a leading role in the establishment of this international body – he was one of its founders in 1947, and was the first president of the International Academy of the History of Science. (Herlea 2014). This exemplified how even a relatively small scientific community (Romania’s) could shape the global infrastructure of the field.

In the 1950s–1970s, new intellectual currents enriched the history of science textbooks. A key change was the influence of Thomas S. Kuhn. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn 1996) revolutionized metahistorical thinking by introducing the concepts of paradigms and paradigm shifts. This work is widely considered a turning point in the history and philosophy of science, one that “rearticulated the theoretical framework” of the field. (Arabatzis 2016) Kuhn argued that science progresses not simply by linear accumulation, but by periodic revolutions in which prevailing frameworks are overturned—a view that resonated with historical case studies and drew attention to communities of scientists and their shared worldviews. Kuhn effectively blended internalist and externalist concerns: while analyzing the internal logic of scientific theory change, he also highlighted sociological factors (e.g., generations of scientists adhering to paradigms). His work generated extensive discussion among both historians and philosophers of science, and for many years books on the history of science involved Kuhn’s notions of normal science and revolutionary science. The widespread influence of Kuhn’s ideas also helped to blur the boundary between the history of science and related fields such as philosophy and sociology of science.

Another development during this period was the rise of the social history of science and the study of science and society. Scholars such as Derek de Solla Price explored the quantitative growth of science (Science Since Babylon, Price, 1961 and Little Science, Big Science, Price, 1963, examined the exponential growth of scientific literature), while others examined the institutional history of science—for example, how laboratories, universities, and funding bodies evolved. The 1970s and 1980s saw a growing interest in the lives of women in science and other underrepresented groups, giving rise to works that recovered forgotten contributions and analyzed gendered aspects of scientific work (this can be seen as part of the broader externalist trend, which examines social structure). In addition, the Strong Program in the Sociology of Knowledge (developed in the 1970s by David Bloor and colleagues in Edinburgh) encouraged historians of science to apply “symmetrical” analysis—explaining both true and false scientific beliefs in terms of social causes—which influenced the way some late-twentieth-century history of science books framed their narratives.

By the end of the twentieth century, the history of science had become a multifaceted discipline. Historians of science, as Roger Cooter has observed, “pioneered the study of science in and as culture,” examining science as part of a broader culture rather than an isolated activity. (Bârsu 2016). They elaborated on how concepts we take for granted (such as objectivity or experiment) have their own histories and are shaped by sociopolitical contexts. (Bârsu 2016) This cultural shift has meant that books on the history of science have increasingly addressed topics such as the role of science in constructing national identities, the ethical dimensions of scientific practice (e.g., in medicine or weapons research), and the public understanding of science over time.

In short, the historical evolution of science history books reflects a trajectory from celebratory, internalist accounts of scientific geniuses to more critical, contextual, and inclusive histories. Fundamental debates such as internalism vs. externalism laid the foundation for a richer understanding that science is both an intellectual and a social endeavor. Key works (Hessen’s Marxist critique, Bernal’s Science in History, Kuhn’s Structure, and many others) changed the way historians write about science. By the late twentieth century, science history publications routinely engaged with questions about who does science, for whom, and with what societal implications—concerns that continue to shape the current state of the field.

Romanian contributions and developments

Although a small country in terms of scientific activity, Romania has a notable and often underappreciated tradition in the history of science. Romanian scholars have been involved in the field since the early 20th century, and their contributions reflect a unique interplay of local intellectual currents and broader international influences. This section highlights Romania’s efforts to write and publish works on the history of science, from the interwar period through the communist era to the present, highlighting how Romania’s experience mirrors broader historiographical changes, while also offering distinctive perspectives.

Early pioneers and interwar activity

Romania’s engagement with the history of science can be traced back to the interwar period, when the country had a thriving intellectual scene. A prominent figure was Valeriu Bologa (1892–1971), a physician by training, who became the first Romanian professor of the history of medicine:

“One of the scientists who had interesting works on the history of science was Valeriu Bologa (1892–1971). He was the first Romanian professor of the history of medicine… although he was primarily a historian of medicine, he went beyond this framework, proving himself to be a skilled historian of science. The topics of his works on the history of science included: the value of the unity of science, the ethical aspects of science throughout the centuries, the interferences between the history of science and the history of medicine, etc.” (Bârsu 2016)

Bologa’s career at the University of Cluj exemplified Romania’s early commitment to this field: the Institute of the History of Medicine and Pharmacy and of Medical Folklore was established in Cluj in 1921 (founded by the French professor Jules Guiart) and was headed by Bologa from 1930 onwards. (Bârsu 2016) Under his leadership, the Cluj institute gained international prestige, indicating that Romanian academics were already integrating into global networks of the history of science.

Bologa and his contemporaries actively participated in international forums. In 1933, Bologa was a member of the scientific committee for the history of science section at the International Congress of Historical Studies in Warsaw and joined the International Congress of the History of Science in Paris (1933) as a delegate of the “Romanian Group for the History of Science”. (Bârsu 2016) This Romanian Group for the History of Science was affiliated with the Paris-based International Academy of the History of Science, indicating formal links between Romania and the epicenters of historiography abroad. In fact, Romanian scholars were among the first members of the International Academy: Bologa himself became a member in 1933. (Bârsu 2016).

Another influential figure, Petre Sergescu (1893–1954) – mathematician and historian of science –was a key organizer of Romania’s participation in international efforts in the history of science. Sergescu eventually emigrated to France during World War II; there he played a key role in the establishment of international institutions (as noted, he was a driving force behind the International Union for the History of Science in 1947). (Herlea 2014) These interwar and immediate postwar activities show that Romanian scholars made early contributions to the global historiography of science, emphasizing the universal nature of scientific development while building a foundation for indigenous scholarship.

In the interwar years, Romanian contributions to the literature of the history of science included articles and lectures rather than major monographs, but their impact was significant in setting the stage for institutional growth. At a 1928 Congress of Romanian Naturalists, Bologa presented “The History of the Teaching of Science in Universities,” reflecting on how earlier scholars studied nature and calling for the integration of a historical perspective into science education. (Bârsu 2016). Such early reflections anticipated later efforts in Romania to formalize the discipline.

Institutionalization within the Academy and the Socialist Era

Following World War II and the beginning of the communist regime, the history of science in Romania entered a new phase, characterized by state support coupled with ideological framing. In 1957, the Romanian Academy (then the Academy of the Romanian People’s Republic) established a Romanian Committee for the History and Philosophy of Science. This committee – a precursor to today’s CRIFST (Romanian Committee for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology) – signaled the official recognition of the field. The committee encouraged research and publication in the history of science and technology, aligning with a broader Eastern Bloc tendency to present scientific heritage. Romanian historians of science during this period often worked within a period-specific interpretive framework, consistent with the dominant ideology that emphasized the dialectical relationship between science and socio-economic factors. Indeed, the externalist approach was essentially the state orthodoxy in historical scholarship during the communist era.

Romanian scholars produced significant works during this period. In particular, Ștefan Bălan (1904–1994), a university engineer, led many initiatives in the history of science. Bălan contributed to the compilation of the landmark multi-volume History of Science and Technology in Romania. (Balan and Mihăilescu 1985) An important result was a chronological dictionary of universal science and technology (published in 1979) and a comprehensive chronology of Romanian science and technology (published in 1981). (Alexandrescu and Bălan 2014). These works, produced under the auspices of the Academy, aimed to document Romanian contributions to science and inventiveness from ancient times to the present. Although somewhat encyclopedic in style, they provided a basis for subsequent analytical histories. Bălan’s leadership also extended to the international level – he was president of ICOHTEC (International Committee for the History of Technology) from 1981 to 1989. (Spinei 2019), another indication of Romania’s active role in the global history of scientific organizations. In fact, several Romanian scholars have been involved in the executive committee of ICOHTEC over the years, including Horia Colan, Liviu Sofonea and others. (Herlea 2014).

A high point for Romanian historiography of science was the hosting of the 16th International Congress on the History of Science in Bucharest in 1981. With the support of UNESCO and the International Union and organized by the Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania, this congress brought together scholars from all over the world. It not only showed Romania’s commitment to the field but also allowed local historians greater exposure to international trends and methodologies. The congress coincided with the establishment of a Commission on Women and Gender in Science (an initiative of the IUHPS founded during the 1981 Bucharest congress), indicating that even in Romania, new historiographical themes (such as gender in science) were being recognized. (Solovyov et al. 1981). The congress proceedings, published by the Academy, remain a valuable resource, encompassing studies on a wide range of topics (from ancient astronomy to modern science policy) and reflecting the state of the field at the time.

Throughout the socialist era, Romanian books and articles on the history of science often had a nationalist slant – highlighting Romanian scientists, inventions, and contributions to global science. For example, monographs were written about figures such as the inventor Traian Vuia (the pioneer of aviation) or the physicist Ștefan Procopiu, framing their achievements both in national pride and in the narrative of scientific progress in the service of societal development. Translation efforts also brought international works to Romanian readers: key texts such as Bernal’s Science in History and, later, Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions were translated into Romanian, giving local scholars and students access to contemporary historiographical debates. And some Romanian works were translated into major languages, although their dissemination was limited.

Post-1989 developments and ongoing contributions

The fall of communism in 1989 opened Romanian Academia to new influences and collaborations. The Romanian Committee for the History and Philosophy of Science was reorganized in 1990/1992, becoming CRIFST (Romanian Committee for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology), with divisions for the history of science, the philosophy of science, and the history of technology) (CRIFST 2025) (Banabic 2024b). Freed from strict ideological constraints, Romanian historians of science have embraced a plurality of approaches. They have increasingly participated in Western conferences, published in international journals, and attended graduate courses abroad, helping to modernize local scholarships.

Romanian contributions in recent decades include specialized studies (often published in journals or Academy proceedings). Topics have ranged from the history of disciplines (e.g., mathematics or geology in Romania) to science under communism (examining, for example, the impact of Soviet Lysenkoism on Romanian biology (Turda 2020) or the careers of scientists during the Cold War). Romanian historians have also contributed to the broader global history of science narrative by introducing Eastern and Central European perspectives. For example, studies on transnational scientific exchanges – such as Romania’s participation in international research programs or the diffusion of Western scientific literature in Romania – add nuance to the story of how science developed across political and cultural borders.

Romania has maintained an active publishing culture for the history of science. The Academy Press and other academic presses have published conference volumes, monographs, and collections of documents. A multi-volume history of Romanian technological and industrial development (published in 2010 and 2020) highlights Romania’s technological legacy in a global context. (Banabic 2024a) (Banabic 2023). Romanian scholars have also engaged in translation projects to make primary sources available – for example, translating medieval or early modern scientific texts into Romanian for the first time, as well as translating Romanian scientific correspondence and archival materials into major languages for international readers.

In short, the Romanian experience in the history of science reflects a microcosm of the evolution of the field: from early academic initiatives in the 1920s, through ideological influences from the mid-century to contemporary diversification and internationalization. Romanian historians of science such as Bologa and Sergescu were present at the creation of key institutions; during the Cold War, figures like Bălan helped keep the discipline active and internationally connected; and today’s generation builds on this legacy with new research directions. The Romanian contributions, while perhaps less well-known globally, underscore the article’s broader theme that the historiography of science has been a transnational endeavor—one enriched by voices from beyond the traditional centers of scholarship.

Current trends in the history of science

Since the 21st century, books on the history of science have presented an impressive diversity of approaches and topics. The current state of the field is characterized by an integration of previous themes (internalist and externalist perspectives) and an expansion into new intellectual territories. Several influential trends mark the contemporary history of scientific writing: a move toward global and transnational perspectives, an embrace of interdisciplinary methods, and evolving practices in the way scholarly work is published and disseminated.

Global and decolonized perspectives

One of the most prominent trends is the globalization of the history of scientific narratives. Today’s historians of science are keenly aware of the Eurocentric origins of the field and have worked actively to correct the imbalance. Early histories often treated non-European regions as mere stagnation zones or receivers of science, assuming that modern science was a uniquely Western achievement that diffused outwards. These “diffusionist” accounts portray non-European societies as essentially passive recipients of scientific knowledge. (Figueirôa 2023) Modern academic institutions take a very different view. Since the 1980s, numerous studies have focused on scientific activities in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Islamic world, attempting to include these regions in the larger map of science. (Figueirôa 2023) This involves not only recounting the contributions of different civilizations (such as Chinese astronomy, Islamic medicine or pre-Columbian engineering), but also examining how knowledge traveled and transformed across cultural boundaries.

The push for a decolonized historiography of science goes beyond adding new regions; it challenges the fundamental questions that historians ask. Instead of asking, for example, “Why didn’t region X develop modern science on its own?” (a question loaded with assumptions of failure), scholars now ask, “What happened in region X in terms of knowledge and practices, and how did these interact with global science?” (Figueirôa 2023) This shift in perspective has made it possible for historians of science to stop asking the ‘wrong’ questions… and instead to illustrate how science has worked in varied contexts. (Figueirôa 2023) A key implication is a redefinition of what counts as science: indigenous knowledge systems, artisanal techniques, and non-Western intellectual traditions are increasingly recognized as part of the history of science, rather than as footnotes. Modern historians construct detailed “ecologies of knowledge,” understanding science in specific relation to its local environment—especially in colonial and postcolonial contexts. (Figueirôa 2023)

This trend is exemplified in books that take an intercultural approach. For example, works on the Columbian Exchange examine how botanical knowledge moved between Europe and the Americas, or how astronomy was practiced in the Jesuit missions in China, highlighting two-way interactions. Histories of science in the Islamic world or South Asia demonstrate that those regions had rich scientific traditions that predated and interacted with European science. The notion of circulation became central: rather than a unidirectional flow from a European “center” to a colonial “periphery,” historians examine networks of exchange, adaptation, and co-creation of scientific knowledge. (Figueirôa 2023) A new historiography has thus emerged that includes countries and personalities that were previously marginalized or simply ignored and that also takes into account flows in the opposite direction—for example, how knowledge or resources from the colonies influenced European science. (Figueirôa 2023)

Romanian historians have also engaged with global perspectives, for example by studying the introduction of Western science to Eastern Europe or the contributions of Romanian scholars to international projects. In addition, Romania’s position (sometimes on the fringes of major scientific centers) makes its historiography sensitive to issues of center and periphery, aligning with global discussions about how smaller or less dominant cultures adopt and adapt science.

Interdisciplinary and thematic expansion

Another current trend is the expansion of the interdisciplinarity of the history of science. The boundaries between the history of science, the history of technology, and the history of medicine have become particularly porous. Many books now seamlessly integrate these fields (hence the growth of programs and series that address the history of science, technology, and medicine as a unified field). For example, environmental history and the history of science have converged in studies of the history of climate science or ecological concepts, while economic history and the history of science intersect when examining the role of industrial research and development in scientific development.

Historians of science also draw on methods and perspectives from anthropology (studying scientific communities with ethnographic sensibilities), sociology (examining laboratory life, in Bruno Latour, although this is fading into the sociology of science), and philosophy (especially in terms of how scientific knowledge is justified and conceptualized). The result is that books on the modern history of science now often appeal to a wider audience. A book on the history of epidemiology, for example, might interest medical historians, public health experts, sociologists, and policy analysts alike, thanks to its blend of narrative and thematic analysis (as has been seen recently with histories of pandemics and epidemiological modeling).

Thematically, contemporary works have ventured into issues of science and society with renewed vigor. Beyond the classical approach to science and society of Bernal’s era, today’s historians are investigating how science intersects gender, race, and class. The history of women in science, once a neglected topic, is now a vibrant subfield, producing books that rewrite the narrative of various disciplines to include female actors. Similarly, analyses of how science has been used to construct racial categories or how class dynamics have affected who can participate in science are becoming common in the literature. These themes reflect broader societal debates and draw on history to inform current understandings of the role of science in social hierarchies.

Another influential theme is the public understanding of science and scientific communication through history. Recent books have explored how scientific ideas have been popularized or contested in different eras—from the early modern period (with the spread of Newtonianism in coffeehouses and salons) to the twentieth century (for example, Cold War science propaganda or the rise of science journalism). This focus is often linked to concerns about expertise and authority. As one editor noted, understanding the historical formation of scholarly communication is crucial at a time when digital publishing and open access are changing the way science reaches the public:

”In posing such questions and exploring them through the historical record, we destabilize notions of the scientific periodical as an unproblematic category. Instead, we find that the emergence of distinctions between literary and scientific journals, for example, were contingent responses (in this case to the commercial context of publishing, as enterprising publishers sought to open new markets and secure new readers). What is more, the category of ‘scientific’ journal also seems to collapse under the slightest pressure. The shifting forms and functions of the scientific journal were part of a web of interactions between different printed forms—the transactions of learned societies, commercial publications, popular and technical or specialist titles, or indeed encyclopaedias—and the spoken word and performance of science, in popular venues as much as at learned societies.

”Such questions (and the provisional answers this special issue provides) are not only of historic interest, but are of crucial significance now, as science has come to utilize new systems of digital and open access publishing, and when questions of expertise and authority are being opened up for scrutiny. If the story of today’s science communication is—as is often claimed—one of new technologies facilitating new platforms and new types of communication, this is in fact a very old story.” (Shuttleworth and Charnley 2016)

Current evolution of publishing practices

The landscape of publishing in the history of science has also evolved in tandem with these intellectual trends. Today, a scholar has many more options for publishing a history of science book than in the past, and the audience for such books has broadened. University presses (e.g., MIT Press, University of Chicago Press, Cambridge University Press) remain the primary venues for scholarly monographs, often in series dedicated to the history of science. These presses ensure rigorous peer review and high standards of production, contributing to the academic credibility of the field. However, commercial publishers occasionally issue history of science titles, especially if they have cross-disciplinary appeal as popular science or intellectual history for general readers.

Translations continue to play a crucial role. Many fundamental works that were originally written in English are now available in other languages (e.g., Romanian editions of Kuhn or Chinese editions of James Watson’s The Double Helix with historical commentaries) and vice versa. The flow of translation is now more multidirectional: not only are Western works being translated, but important studies by non-Anglophone authors are increasingly being rendered in English, recognizing that significant historiography is produced in French, German, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, etc. Romanian academic publishing houses, such as Polirom or the Romanian Academy Publishing House, have made efforts to translate both classical and recent historiographical works into Romanian, thus educating new generations of students and researchers locally.

Another hallmark of the current publishing scene is the growth of edited volumes and textbooks. Because the field has grown so diverse, collaborative volumes bring together multiple experts to cover different regions or topics. For example, large textbooks (such as the Handbook of the Historiography of Science recently published by Springer in 2023) contain dozens of chapters on various approaches – including topics such as “Postcolonial and Decolonial Historiography” (Figueirôa 2023), highlighting the maturity and self-reflexive nature of the field. Such collections indicate areas that are now considered important (they often include sections on digital history, global history, science and religion, etc., reflecting contemporary concerns).

In terms of readership, there is a healthy intersection of academic and popular interest. Some history of science books are written in an accessible manner and are marketed to science enthusiasts and the educated public – for example, biographies of scientists or narratives of famous experiments – thus crossing the line between academic and popular publishing. This trend helps to disseminate historical knowledge to a wider audience, and these books are often supported by extensive references, effectively serving dual purposes.

Finally, the digital revolution has begun to affect current publishing. Although we will discuss future implications in the next section, it is worth noting that many history of science books are already published simultaneously in print and digital formats, and publishers are increasingly allowing parts of the works (such as introductions or specific chapters) to be accessed online. Digital archives and databases maintained by research institutes (such as the digital collections of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science) have complemented books by openly providing primary sources and research data. For example, the Open Sources Edition hosted by the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (MPIWG) offers open-access scholarly editions of classic scientific works (MPIWG 2025), which historians can reference or even incorporate into their own work. (OA Network 2025) This integration of digital content with traditional book publishing enriches the resources available to both authors and readers today.

In conclusion, the current state of the historiography of science is vibrant and pluralistic. Books in this field now cover whose science (global and marginalized actors), how science relates to society and culture (gender, public communication, etc.), and what counts as science (expanding the canon beyond Western paradigms). Publishing practices have adapted to these expansions, with more inclusive authors and readers, and a gradual adoption of new media. The stage is set for further transformations as we move forward.

Future directions and emerging trends

Looking ahead, the development of history of science books is set to be shaped by several emerging trends. These cover both the intellectual content of the historiography and the means of publishing and disseminating research. In this section, I outline some key future directions: the rise of open access and digital publishing, further interdisciplinary convergence, and the potential for new narratives driven by pressing contemporary issues. The future of history of science books is likely to be shaped by the twin imperatives of accessibility (making scholarly works available to a wider audience) and innovation (adapting methods from other fields and new technologies).

Open access and digital works

One of the most significant changes on the horizon is the push toward Open Access (OA) publishing for scholarly books. Traditionally, scholarly monographs, including works on the history of science, have been available only through purchase or university libraries. However, there is a strong movement to make research freely available online. As of 2024, thousands of history books and edited collections are already available as open access titles: for example, the Directory of Open Access Books lists over 1,600 monographs under history-related keywords. (OA Network 2025) Many history of science titles are included in this growing corpus. University presses and funding agencies in Europe and beyond are increasingly supporting OA models, in which an institution or grant pays for the publication and the digital book is then free for all readers. (OA Network 2025) This model can greatly expand the reach of academic works in the history of science, allowing educators, students, and independent scholars around the world (including those from resource-poor backgrounds) to read and use the latest research without paying for it.

The Max Planck Institute for the History of Science has been at the forefront of this trend, not only with its open-source primary texts, as mentioned, but also through its support for open-access series such as the Max Planck Research Library for the History and Development of Knowledge. Initiatives such as Gutenberg-e, a collaboration between the American Historical Association and Columbia University Press, have already demonstrated the viability of digital monographs in history—several award-winning dissertations in the history of science have been published digitally through this program, available for free online. (OA Network 2025) We can expect more publishers (including major university presses) to adopt hybrid or fully open models. For example, MIT Press’s Direct to Open platform aims to release new books openly. This democratization of knowledge aligns well with the ethos of the history of science community, which often studies the open circulation of knowledge in past eras; historians are now applying this principle to their own work.

Digital formats also allow for innovation in how content is presented. Future “books” in the history of science may not be linear texts at all, but interactive publications with embedded archival images, datasets, or multimedia. Already, some e-books in this field include hyperlinks to online databases or high-resolution scans of manuscripts and instruments. As publishers become more comfortable with digital possibilities, a historian of science might, for example, publish a digital monograph on 17th-century astronomy that includes an interactive star map or a recreated video of the experiment alongside the narrative. This could enrich the reader’s experience and understanding. Moreover, digital publishing allows continuous updates rather than the static second or third print edition, an online book can be updated with new findings, corrections, or added chapters, which could be particularly useful in rapidly evolving historiographical debates.

Interdisciplinary integration and collaboration

The future is likely to see even greater interdisciplinary blending. As complex global challenges (such as climate change or pandemics) gain attention, historians of science are increasingly collaborating with scientists and scholars from other fields to put current issues in historical perspective. I anticipate books that transcend traditional boundaries, such as histories of climate science that involve climate specialists as co-authors, or histories of data and algorithms that engage with computer scientists. These collaborations can produce works that speak to multiple audiences—academics and practitioners—and can be published by presses that cater to broader audiences (for example, an environmental history series could be given a history of science title on water management or atmospheric science).

Another aspect of interdisciplinarity is methodology. The rise of the digital humanities could influence the history of scientific research and publication. Future books could use text mining, network analysis, or GIS mapping of historical scientific data, presenting the results in new visual formats. Several pioneering studies have already used bibliometric analysis to track the development of disciplines over the centuries; their results could be included as dynamic graphs in digital publications. While the narrative form of books will remain crucial, supplements such as datasets or downloadable code could accompany the text, allowing readers to engage with the evidence in new ways.

Educational dissemination is another dimension. The boundaries between textbooks, popular books, and research monographs can blur. With open access, a professor in Romania could assign students chapters from multiple OA monographs as easily as a textbook, adapting a curriculum to include the latest scholarly work. We could see consortia of historians producing adaptable educational resources—essentially modular “open textbooks” in the history of science that can be reconfigured. This would mark a departure from the traditional single-author textbook model and leverage the collective expertise of the field.

New themes and inclusions

In terms of content, future history of science books is likely to engage with themes that reflect contemporary concerns and ethical questions. For example, as the world grapples with the societal implications of artificial intelligence, we can expect historians to publish works on the history of artificial intelligence research, the cultural history of robots, or the longer period of automation and thinking machines. Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic has already led to historical analyses of past pandemics and the development of virology and epidemiology—a trend that is likely to continue, merging the history of science with the history of public health.

The call to decolonize the history of science will continue to bear fruit. We may see comprehensive series that focus on regional histories of science written by local experts (e.g., multi-volume histories of science in Africa, in Southeast Asia, etc.). Such projects are conceived within international bodies and could be facilitated by open access funding. They would serve to rewrite the “master narrative” of science in a much more pluralistic way, fulfilling the vision of including all cultures in the story of human knowledge. And Romania can produce works that place its national story in a broader Eastern European or global context, examining, for example, the exchanges of scientific ideas across the Iron Curtain, or between Romania and the developing world during the Cold War.

Inclusiveness is a key word for future directions – not only including diverse regions, but also diverse actors (ensuring that women, minority groups, indigenous knowledge holders, and others appear in the narrative where they have previously been omitted). The Commission on Women and Gender in the History of Science (established in 1981 in Bucharest) and similar bodies are likely to stimulate publications that integrate these perspectives rather than isolating them. The same is true for histories of marginalized sciences (e.g., the history of science in small nations or of applied fields considered less prestigious in older narratives).

Finally, the community-centered aspect of future publishing may increase. With digital forums and preprint servers, historians of science are more openly sharing work in progress and inviting feedback before formal publication. This may lead to more refined, community-verified books. It may also lead to alternative formats, such as history wikis or collaborative online archives, that themselves serve as living “books”—continuously updated compendia of historical knowledge on topics. While such formats will not replace the scholarly monograph, they could complement it and even feed into traditional publications.

In conclusion, the future of books on the history of science looks bright, characterized by greater openness, innovation in format, and a broadened scope of research. The fundamental goal remains: to provide insightful and well-researched accounts of how science has developed and interacted with society. But the ways in which these accounts are created and shared are evolving in interesting ways. If the past century has seen the professionalization and expansion of the field, the coming years promise democratization and diversification of both content and access, ensuring that the history of science remains a dynamic and relevant discipline.

Conclusion

The development of books on the history of science reflects the evolution of the field itself—from its early phase of chronicling major discoveries to its current state of critical, inclusive, and comprehensive inquiry into the past of science. Historically, we have observed a transition from internalist, hero-centered narratives to accounts that situated science within broader societal currents (the shift from “internal” to “context”). Key intellectual themes, such as the internalist vs. externalist debate, have provided a productive tension that has expanded the methodological toolkit of the field, allowing later historians to synthesize approaches. The role of science in society has become a central concern, whether in mid-twentieth-century Marxist history or in contemporary cultural histories that examine how science and society construct each other. More recently, the imperative to decolonize the history of science has challenged scholars to rethink Eurocentric narratives and integrate multiple traditions and voices of knowledge, transforming the content of history of science books to be more globally representative. (Figueirôa 2023)

In parallel, the publishing practices surrounding history of science works have transformed. Once in the domain of a few elite scholars writing in major Western languages, the literature of the history of science is now produced by a global community and in many languages, often with translations filling in the gaps. The Romanian contributions, as highlighted, illustrate how a country on the periphery of Europe has engaged with and enriched the field – from early integration into international bodies by figures like Sergescu, to substantial chronicling works under Bălan in the 1980s, and to contemporary science fully participating in global dialogues. The Romanian case highlights that the history of science is not just about what we study (the scientific past of different cultures), but also about who writes that history. Diversity in authorship leads to diversity in perspectives.

Today, in the 2020s, the current state of science history books is robust. They cover a wide range of topics – intellectual, social, technological, intercultural – and often take innovative forms. Historians of science have, in a sense, applied an understanding of the circulation of knowledge to their own work: pioneering open access to freely share scholarly works (OA Network 2025) and adopting interdisciplinary methods to answer complex questions.

Looking ahead, the trajectory suggests even greater openness and engagement. Open-access digital publishing promises to break down the remaining barriers between scholarly knowledge and the public. (OA Network 2025) Interdisciplinary collaboration is likely to produce richer and more nuanced books, whether on the history of climate modeling or the ethical dimensions of the history of AI. And as new challenges arise, the history of science will continue to provide context and perspective, for example, by informing debates about trust in science or the role of expertise through historical case studies.

In short, the body of books on the history of science is growing and changing, just like science itself. They have evolved from a handful of Enlightenment treatises to thriving global literature that critically examines science in all its facets. By highlighting key themes and shifts—including those led by Romanian scholars and institutions—this article has shown that the historiography of science is dynamic, answering new questions, and incorporating new voices. The continued evolution of publishing practices, from academic presses to digital platforms, will ensure that future history of science books is more accessible and interactive than ever before. What remains constant is the core mission: to understand how humanity came to know what it knows about the natural world and to reflect on how these processes of knowledge have been shaped by, and in turn shaped, human societies. In fulfilling this mission, history of science authors and editors will continue to adapt, innovate, and inspire future generations of readers.

Bibliography

Alexandrescu, Mihai, and Ștefan‑Florin Bălan. 2014. “Un Secol de La Nașterea Lui Ștefan BĂlan, Personalitate de Seamăa Științei Și Învățământului Superior de Construcții Din România.” STUDII ŞI COMUNICĂRI / DIS VII. https://studii.crifst.ro/doc/2014/2014_2_01.pdf.
Arabatzis, Theodore. 2016. “<em>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</Em> and History and Philosophy of Science in Historical Perspective.” In Shifting Paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn and the History of Science. MPRL – Proceedings. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.34663/9783945561119-15.
Balan, Stefan, and Nicolae ST. Mihăilescu. 1985. Istoria Stiintei Si Tehnicii In Romania (Date Cronologice). Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania. http://archive.org/details/istoria-stiintei-si-tehnicii-in-romania-date-cronologice.
Banabic, Dorel, ed. 2023. History of Romanian Technology and Industry: Volume 2: Electrical Engineering, Energetics, Transport and Technology Education. 2024th edition. Springer.
Banabic, Dorel. 2024a. History of Romanian Technology and Industry: Volume 1: Mechanics, Processing Techniques and Construction. Springer.
Banabic, Dorel. 2024b. “Introduction.” In History of Romanian Technology and Industry: Volume 2: Electrical Engineering, Energetics, Transport and Technology Education, edited by Dorel Banabic. Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39191-0_1.
Bârsu, Cristian. 2016. “Valeriu Bologa’s Studies on the History of Science.” Clujul Medical 89 (3): 448–51. https://doi.org/10.15386/cjmed-681.
Bernal, J. D. 2011. Science in History: The Natural Sciences in Our Time. Faber & Faber, Limited.
CRIFST. 2025. “Comitetul Român Pentru Istoria Și Filosofia Științei Și Tehnicii Sau CRIFST.” https://www.crifst.ro/.
Figueirôa, Silvia F. de M. 2023. “Postcolonial and Decolonial Historiography of Science.” In Handbook for the Historiography of Science, edited by Mauro L. Condé and Marlon Salomon. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27510-4_29.
Graham, Loren R. 1985. “The Socio-Political Roots of Boris Hessen: Soviet Marxism and the History of Science.” Social Studies of Science 15 (4): 705–22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/285401.
Herlea, Alexandru. 2014. “ISTORIA TEHNICII – COMPONENTĂ A CULTURII ROMÂNE.” Buletinul AGIR, no. 3. https://www.agir.ro/buletine/3082.pdf#:~:text=numele%20de%20%E2%80%9E%20International%20Union,fost%20creat%20%C3%AEn%201968%20%E2%80%9EThe.
Hessen, Boris. 2009. “The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia.” In The Social and Economic Roots of the Scientific Revolution: Texts by Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann, edited by Gideon Freudenthal and Peter McLaughlin. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9604-4_2.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Version 3rd edition. 3rd edition. University of Chicago Press.
MPIWG. 2025. “Edition Open Sources.” https://edition-open-sources.org/.
OA Network. 2025. “Open Access in Historical Studies.” https://open-access.network/en/information/subject-specific-open-access/historical-studies.
Schuster, John Andrew. 1995. The Scientific Revolution: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science. Department of Science & Technology Studies, University of Wollongong.
Shuttleworth, Sally, and Berris Charnley. 2016. “Science Periodicals in the Nineteenth and Twenty-First Centuries.” Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 70 (4): 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0026.
Solovyov, Yuri I., Luboš. Nový, and International Congress on the History of Sciences. 1981. Revolutionary Changes in Science and Technology at the Turn of 19th and 20th Centuries: Studies Prepared by Czechoslovak and Soviet Historians of Science for the 16th International Congress of the History of Science. Acta Historiae Rerum Naturalium Nec Non Technicarum. Special Issue ;14. Institute of Czechoslovak and General History. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/010561532.
Spinei, Victor. 2019. Civilizaţia Românească 24 – Istoria Tehnicii Şi A Industriei Româneşti – Vol. 1 – Mecanica, Tehnicile De Prelucrare Şi Construcţiile. Editura Academiei Române.
Turda, Marius. 2020. “Subversive Affinities: Embracing Soviet Science in Late 1940s Romania.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 83 (October): 101131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2018.04.004.
Wikipedia. 2025. “Boris Hessen.” In Wikipedia. February 10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Hessen&oldid=1275046852.