Nature: It’s good to blog

Posted by Neville Sanjana at 9:53 AM EST

From the department of self-affirming citations, Nature has an article this past week titled It’s good to blog on the importance of blogging as a way of conversing directly with paper authors. Perhaps most relevant is this:

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.

One Response to “Nature: It’s good to blog”

  1. Phil Donnelly Says:

    Blogs may not substitute for peer review, but they are read & commented upon by lots of people with a special interest, as well as students,I suspect. I’m all for them, as a reader.

Leave a Reply

 

Additional comments powered by BackType

  • nd categories

  • contact us

    Neurodudes is moderated by Neville Sanjana, Bayle Shanks, and Stephen Larson. Comments that you post might be delayed so that we can tell our software that it's not spam -- however, not all comments are pre-screened so don't assume that we have read them, either. Any money we make off this site is used to pay for hosting, or given to charity; if in the future we pay contributors, we will include reader-authors. None of us are medical doctors so please don't ask for medical advice. Contact us here.