Volume 42 includes several chapters on topics of longstanding interest to the field. Regular ARIST readers will not be surprised to see a section devoted to information seeking and retrieval, or chapters reviewing developments in knowledge management and education for information science. Coverage of syndromic surveillance systems and education informatics takes us in somewhat newer directions, as does the section on academic disciplines, about which I would like to say a little more.We tend to take academic writing for granted, like wallpaper or muzak. It's as if writing is unrelated to the doing of science: a mere afterthought. But writing in all its manifestations, from jottings in a lab notebook to the polished prose of the peer-reviewed article in the journal of record, cannot be separated from the material practices of scholars and researchers, a point made succinctly by Montgomery (2003, p. 1): "There are no boundaries, no walls, between the doing of science and the communication of it; communication is the doing of science."Texts are not simple reflections or representations of the world-as-is. Rather they are shaped by, and in turn shape, the disciplines and discourse communities of which they are constitutive elements. Different academic disciplines have different conventions when it comes to the formal presentation of research findings and claim staking. We use, more or less consciously, a battery of rhetorical devices (e.g., hedging, the passive voice, copious referencing) to marshal evidence, mobilize support, and, ultimately, persuade the reader of our viewpoint. Styles of writing are as varied as the epistemic cultures with which they are associated. The textual outputs of critical theorists and high-energy physicists, for instance, would not easily be confused; these two tribes inhabit mutually