Home > Uncategorized > Scientific blogging: Good or bad?

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?

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. September 26, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    I completely agree with you. I do find the old method to be more effective when it comes to getting ideas out to the public: Judging before publishing! In todays time because scientists (or wannabe scientists) can release whatever they want to the world it gives people too many views to the point that they don’t know what to believe. If a scientist gives incorrect information or bad advice to their readers because of a simple miscalculation it screws them and their own ideas of science up. As a class we learned from the “Perspectives on the Nature of Science” article that just because a scientist said it doesn’t make it true. Scientist are constantly trying to disprove each other so it would make sense for them just to review results together in order to make sure they are concrete in accuracy but because they don’t its hard to choose sides when they post two different discoveries from the same experiment.

  2. September 26, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    I think the old version is much more effective in making sure that there are no flaws before publishing. When scientists can get together and discuss all the possibilities in a new theory then it makes it so the discussions occur out of the public eye. All of the different point of views can be seen before the scientist publishes their work and they can take the other points of view into account.
    However I think this new way of blogging is much more effective in getting ideas out to the public. It makes the scientific theories, research and ideas much more accessible to the general public. The style of writing is much easier for people outside of the scientific community to comprehend and the ideas get out much faster than they used to.

  3. September 29, 2011 at 3:08 am

    My issues in alternative medicine professor was talking about a similar situation. Scientists and researchers can publish or say something without it being completely true. When it comes to something as varying as ones body, different results are bound to happen. I believe for a theory or belief to be effective other people should be able to replicate it and get the same results.

  4. September 30, 2011 at 3:12 am

    I agree with everyone that has commented so far: judging before publishing seems to be a safer and more effective way to educate the public. It is interesting to me that all of us can agree on this, yet this way of publishing information is becoming a lost form. I am taking a class called Media in a Free Society, and though we have not talked much about blogging, it is interesting to learn about the history of the media. Media is usually thought of as being newspapers or newscasts on television, but blogging is becoming a new popular form of media. In the class we often talk about the importance and power of the media: it pretty much determines what we all think and know about. It makes me a little uneasy to think that bloggers share this kind of power, especially since, like this blog and the article attached explains, bloggers usually are judged and corrected after publishing their work.

  1. October 2, 2011 at 9:26 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: