Scientific blogging: Good or bad?
While reading one of the blogs that is recommended for us to follow, I came across a brief piece from the summer that I figured tied in closely to our class topic. Titled, Is Science Communication Returning to Its Roots?, it goes in to talk about how in the 18th century scientists would gather together to judge what was a winning idea before publishing to the world. But blogs and current social media are allowing for papers and reports to be published to the world first before being reviewed and judged by peers. This new form allows for the reader to take part in deciding about what is good and what is bad; and that it allows scientists to share ideas much faster and more efficiently. The author believes that this is a much better approach then the scientific journals that still dominate scientific publishing. I personally feel that the old method, where they judged then published is better because it allows for error checking before announcing a supposed new discovery to the world. Currently a scientist could blog about his new discovery and it could spread around the world before the scientist realizes he calculated something wrong. There is much more potential for error in the system now than before. What do you think? Which system is better: Judging before publishing or publishing then waiting for judgement?