Abstract

Peirce's misfortunes to get some of his most important works published provide an interesting window into publication and editorial practices that prevailed at the turn of the 20th century in the United States. Also, what Peirce had to face appears not that different from what many have experienced in the world of contemporary academic publishing. Peirce's manuscripts were routinely deemed too technical, lengthy, or of limited interest to the general readership and scholars who were not experts of the area. But who is supposed to be the expert when the matter presented is altogether new? Unscientific attitudes persist in today's publication culture, too, where a would-be academic quickly learns to err on the side...