It strikes me that the nature of scholarly discourse in the sciences, and engineering, is primarily focused on discussion among living participants. There is a broad consensus in these fields that old is obsolete, and that inevitable progress has left bare bones and ashes in the stacks of libraries: stuff suitable for mere historians only. One publishes to talk, to announce, to replace. One reads to be challenged, to be inspired, to reply.
In some of the liberal arts, on the other hand, the nature of scholarly discourse seems backwards-looking: much more concerned with what the dead or unreachably distant have said, and inferring what they meant from what they wrote. These disciplines are concerned, at their root, with contexts and frameworks, theories and social norms. One publishes to append one’s work, not amend; to join the scholarly host, not disperse it.
Broad generalizations, of course. No room in such a strict dichotomy for the study of media, or policy, or computers, or mathematics.
But insofar as it might be something like the world, what does it say about books, magazines, and publishing? What is preserved, and what added to a collection?