This paper explores the pivotal role of scientific societies as “matchmakers” between scholars and institutions in the 20th century, by focusing on the American Astronomical Society (AAS) and the American Historical Association (AHA).
The investigation delves into the nuanced mechanisms of professional networking, tracing how scientific societies shaped academic careers through job placement service, job- interview processes organized during the societies’ annual conferences, and strategic networking events. It draws on a careful analysis of institutional records, such the records of the “appointment service” of the AAS, and personal narratives collected from scholars who navigated these systems, to go beyond the institutional history and get access to implicit yet fundamental networking practices.
The paper investigates the dual nature of these matchmaking mechanisms and practices: fostering professional advancement while reinforcing power hierarchies. By prioritizing candidates with established academic or institutional connections, and by shaping an “ideal type” of scholar through guidelines and professional norms, these societies might have excluded underrepresented groups, particularly women and minorities, from accessing key positions and resources. At the same time, the study raises questions about whether societal changes, such as feminism and civil rights movements, influenced scientific societies to adapt their practices, potentially challenging exclusionary norms to promote inclusivity
Through a comparative analysis of these societies, this paper investigates how disciplinary contexts shaped matchmaking processes, and positions scientific societies as active agents in shaping academic career pathways—whose roles fluctuated between reproducing inequalities and facilitating broader access across disciplines and societal contexts.

In the early twentieth century, two names dominated the Indian scientific community both nationally and internationally: Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman and Meghnad Saha. Both were staunch political nationalists, yet they had competing visions of ‘scientific nationalism’ that were often at odds with one another. Raman, despite being awarded the Nobel Prize in 1930, often rejected an increasingly internationalising and globalising scientific world. Saha, despite being a more radical political nationalist, engaged in a much more global and cosmopolitan form of scientific nationalism. From membership to the Royal Society, to the founding of Indian science academies, to influencing science policy of the new Independent Indian government, the twin perspectives of Saha’s and Raman’s scientific nationalism both attempted to influence the direction of science in India over the twentieth century. This paper seeks to explore these ideologies of 'scientific nationalism', the differences between them and the outcome for the broader Indian scientific community. The term has become quite popular in recent discourses of Indian science, specifically related to the rise of Hindu nationalism in the twenty first century. However, this paper seeks to add to the historiography of the Global History of Science by tracing the roots of ‘scientific nationalism’ to the twentieth century through the perspective of these two figures.

UNESCO supported IAHS in 1946 by demanding counterparts that were unacceptable to traditional academicians, but which were by-passed by the creation of IUHS. The stakes of these demands were revealed in the course of discussions between academicians and UNESCO in those years.

The biochemist Joseph Nedham headed the science sector when UNESCO was created in 1945. The history of science was familiar to him. He had participated in the IAHS congress in 1931 in London and contributed to the history of biochemistry. The creation of an International Institute for the History of Science was in the 1945 program adopted by UNESCO.

UNESCO requested a centrality for national groups, the basis of a more democratic operation; greater geographical diversity of academicians; the attachment of the history of science to science through membership through ICSU; taking into account the history of the social implications of science. Conversely, IAHS seeks financial support and backing for the revival of Archeion.
Resistance within IAHS is strong, but the risk of a competing organization and the financial needs to survive led to a compromise. It took the form of an Union alongside the Academy. The compromise was adopted in December 1946, a meeting where the academicians were in the minority.

The archives of the main protagonists (Arnold Reymond, Charles Singer, Joseph Needham and George Sarton) complement those of UNESCO and IAHS. They allow us to decipher the issues and ideological positions behind these negotiations, the final compromise and the first years of IUHS.

The primary function of scientific standardization is the collaborative production and dissemination of technical knowledge. Standardization fosters consistency, reliability, and comparability across disciplines and geographic regions, creating shared frameworks that enhance the quality of individual research projects and their collective contributions to global scientific collaboration.
Since 1950, scientific standardization has evolved significantly, with major organizations such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and British Standards leading its development. These organizations have established protocols and guidelines—such as ISO 17025 for laboratory practices and ISO 14001 for environmental monitoring—that ensure reproducibility and accuracy in scientific processes. Specialized fields, such as biodiversity, also benefit from taxonomic standards that maintain consistent species classification.
David Noble observed that "scientific standardization paved the way for industrial standardization," highlighting its foundational role in advancing technological and industrial practices. This study explores the evolution of scientific standardization over the past 75 years, examining key trends and their impact on scientific methodologies and outcomes based on an analysis of the standards set by these major standardization bodies.
Thousands of standardization bodies, ranging from small societies and private enterprises to international commissions, also contribute to this process. Their roles, along with selected specific examples, are analyzed to demonstrate how these entities shape the landscape of scientific standardization, facilitating global knowledge exchange and innovation.