A couple of months ago I lamented that scientific blogging would probably be unable to serve as an effective “filter” for the scientific literature. Scientists struggle to keep up with the literature in their own field (let alone related fields), and it would be nice if someone could pre-screen emerging papers in a way that would decrease the time and effort involved in keeping current. For a variety of reasons, I think it’s unlikely that science blogs will be able to serve this function.
But filtering isn’t the only justification for the existence of science blogs, as is made clear by a recent bumper crop of blog posts and articles about science blogging. Blogging can help an individual scientist share ideas with colleagues and spread the word about one’s own work. Some see blogs as increasingly essential to the process of self-promotion, whereas others see an opportunity to fill growing holes in the fabric of conventional science journalism. There is a consensus that blogging is less prestigious than other kinds of scientific publishing, but as participation grows, this may change.
In rough order of the ideas presented in the previous paragraph, I present these pieces here for your delectation:
- It’s good to blog (Nature editorial)
- Is it becoming dangerous to not blog? (Useful Chemistry)
- Scientific blogging: Ignore it and be ignored? (Depth-First)
- Filling the void (Nature editorial)
- Science journalism: Supplanting the old media? (Nature news feature)
- Science Blogging plus/vs Science Journalism (A Blog Around The Clock)
- How to broaden the reach and legitimacy of blogging to practicing scientists (Terra Sigillata)