Nature: It's good to blog

In today's Nature you can read an editorial that says, right there in the title, It's good to blog:

Is blogging a part of science, journalism or public discourse? In fact it may be all of these -- an ambiguity that can sometimes leave scientists feeling uncertain about the rules of the game.

----------------------

The blogosphere differs from mass media and specialized media in many respects, but the same considerations apply in disseminating new scientific results there. Authors of papers in press have the right to correct misrepresentations and to point to results that will appear in a paper. But a full discussion should await the paper's publication.

Indeed, researchers would do well to blog more than they do. The experience of journals such as Cell and PLoS ONE, which allow people to comment on papers online, suggests that researchers are very reluctant to engage in such forums. But the blogosphere tends to be less inhibited, and technical discussions there seem likely to increase.

Moreover, there are societal debates that have much to gain from the uncensored voices of researchers. A good blogging website consumes much of the spare time of the one or several fully committed scientists that write and moderate it. But it can make a difference to the quality and integrity of public discussion.

Read the whole thing, then go over to the Nature Opinion forum to discuss it.

There are also related threads there, see here and here..

More like this

I know that you know that I work for PLoS. So, I know that a lot of you are waiting for me to respond, in some way, to the hatchet-job article by Declan Bucler published in Nature yesterday. Yes, Nature and PLoS are competitors in some sense of the word (though most individual people employed by…
Bjoern Brembs is on a roll! Check all of these out: Incentivizing open scientific discussion: Apart from the question of whether the perfect scientist is the one who only spends his time writing papers and doing experiments, what incentives can one think of to provide for blogging, commenting,…
Continuing the current discussion of the questionable quality of popular science journalism, British researcher Simon Baron-Cohen weighs in at the New Scientist with his personal experiences of misrepresented research. Baron-Cohen complains that earlier this year, several articles on his work…
Via Bora Zivkovic, I see that there's a new blog in town -- this one devoted to the joys of scientists blogging to advance their work. It's called Science of Blogging and it's by Peter Janiszewski and Travis Saunders who blog at Obesity Panacea. I'll let them explain their mission: Social media…

Nice discussions on the Nature forums. I especially liked your response to Maya. One of the main problems that was under-emphasized though is that blogging need not take up much time. It's just free-form writing, usually working out my thought process in one go and clicking "Publish".

In comparison, I spend far more time clicking through and reading others' blogs. That's the time-consuming and addictive part for me, which drives my wife crazy. ;-)

Me, too. I spend a lot of time reading and commenting. My own blogging does not take much time. Longer, more serious blog posts usually are written in my head while driving, walking the dogs, or taking a shower, then quickly transcribed and posted.

There is also an interesting thread about that - the time needs for blogging - here.

thanks for sharing. makes the arguement that science blogging is a apart of my science service easier to defend.

"Authors of papers in press have the right to correct misrepresentations and to point to results that will appear in a paper".
When all the newspapers will agree... We shall talk again of it.

If I published anything bloggable you'd probably beat me to it anyway...

By Nathaniel Marshall (not verified) on 26 Feb 2009 #permalink