This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Smithsonian Instutition commentary on whether it was "scientific"
In 2000, upon acquiring a full run of a Dutch reprint of the journal, the Dibner Library of the History of Science and Technology of the Smithsonian Institution remarked that in the first 100 years only 30-40% of the journal was scientific, and that it was more of a newsletter: "Although the Journal des sçavans is often hailed as the first scientific journal, this is not quite true. The Journal is more of a class of a general gazetteer with all sorts of news that might be of interest to scholarly readers. In its early years, the Journal contained a mix of articles and reviews on scientific, historical, humanistic, legal, and ecclesiastical matters." From one of the cited references, http://www.sil.si.edu/libraries/Dibner/newacq_2000.htmJodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Scientific periodicals evolved over centuries to the form we know today. Phil Trans did not start out as a scientic journal in the modern sense, either. I am not sure I understand what your point is. What would you have changed in the article? Rl (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)