A heated nineteenth-century debate over the origins of coral reefs takes on a significance beyond geological theory in Melinda Baldwin's excellent and much-needed study of the prestigious scientific journal Nature. The book begins by posing a simple question – ‘who is a scientist?’ – and seeks to address this through a detailed analysis of the periodical as a site in which the boundaries of scientific knowledge were debated and established. A particularly striking case is that of George Douglas Campbell, the eighth Duke of Argyll. In 1880, the geologist John Murray published a paper that challenged Charles Darwin's widely accepted theory of coral reef formation, proposing instead his own countertheory based on extensive research whilst aboard the survey ship HMS Challenger. Murray's work found a willing champion in the Duke of Argyll, a Liberal politician who had also gained acclaim for scientific research conducted earlier in his career. The response to Argyll is extremely telling. The president of the Geological Society, T.G. Bonney, wrote an editorial for Nature contending that Argyll was inadequately qualified to comment on scientific matters. Bonney argued that the ‘mental qualities' required to be successful as either a politician or a man of science were almost directly opposed, and therefore nearly impossible to find combined in a single person. ‘To the man of science, truth is a “pearl of great price,” to buy which he is ready to part with everything previously obtained; to the statesman, success is the one thing needful, for the sake of which hardly any sacrifice appears too great’ (p. 81). It seems that many of Nature's readers agreed, as further correspondents similarly questioned Argyll's right to make scientific claims. The duke was thereby precluded from further debate in Nature, as a politician was considered to lack both the intellectual and moral qualifications to be a true man of science. Argyll himself was forced to admit that scientific men are ‘immensely superior to politicians, especially just now’ (p. 81). This effectively demonstrates the formation of a shared sense of identity among the correspondents of Nature, and it is in the detailed treatment of such controversies that the strength of Baldwin's book lies, as these incidents are skilfully employed to illustrate wider trends in science and scientific publishing.

Nature was established by Norman Lockyer in 1869, conceived not as a specialized publication for practitioners, but rather as a periodical that would ‘place before the general public the grand results of Scientific Work’ (according to its original mission statement). However, as is evident from the above, it quickly took on an entirely different role, becoming an important medium of communication between researchers. Making Nature covers the entire span of the journal's history, from its Victorian inception to the near-present, with chapters proceeding in ‘roughly chronological’ order. This approach provides a narrative that is much more than the history of an institution, as in many ways it traces the development of British science itself. Early chapters on the nineteenth century tell of Nature's less than auspicious beginnings and detail the problematic involvement of T.H. Huxley and the X Club. The journal would only come to occupy its unique role in scientific discourse when a younger generation adopted it as their favoured medium, employing it as a means to articulate their sense of communal identity. Subsequent chapters illustrate the growing internationalism of science in the twentieth century, reflected in the increasing number of non-British contributors to Nature, whilst also discussing the limitations placed on this intellectual freedom by the rise of Nazism in Germany and later by the Cold War. Baldwin also finds opportunity for a fruitful discussion of peer review during this period, suggesting that the editors' reliance on personal recommendation rather than expert opinion goes some way to challenging the oft-repeated claim that peer review was established as a key feature of the scientific journal in the seventeenth century by Henry Oldenburg and the Philosophical Transactions. In the concluding chapter, centring on the ‘cold fusion’ controversy of the 1980s, Baldwin demonstrates that while much had changed in the way science was communicated during the 120 years of Nature's existence, the journal continued to be a forum in which the parameters of scientific knowledge were drawn.

Given much of the book's focus on correspondence taking place within the columns of Nature, Baldwin is forced to contend with a problem familiar to many periodical historians, that being the almost total lack of an official archive for the journal. This must necessarily limit what can be inferred from readers' letters, as without access to unpublished material, there is no way to determine editorial practice and the extent to which this mediated the views expressed in the journal. Furthermore, and perhaps more significantly, there is great difficulty in understanding how readers actively engaged with and made use of the journal. Despite these considerable obstacles, Baldwin makes effective use of personal correspondence and other alternative sources, going some way towards remedying this issue.

Given current debates over the future of scholarly publishing and scientific communication, particularly with issues surrounding open access, Making Nature is an important work that brings a vital historical perspective to bear. In addition to historians of nineteenth- and twentieth-century science, it is hoped that twenty-first-century scientists will feel encouraged to read this book.