I would like to signal an interesting article I have found on the web:

Brian Cox is wrong: blogging your research is not a recipe for disaster - by Sarah Kendrew

I tend to agree with Sarah, but I also think some confusion might arise in comparing blogs with peer reviewed articles. So forget peer reviewing and its problems for a moment. We live in a blog here, so I ask the question: what should scientific bloggers do? For instance, should they

- communicate the last minute potentially revolutionary results
- use blogging with the purpose explaining to non specialists how scientists work and what they do
- "teach" to non-specialists the basic foundations of their discipline
- what else?

I don't know the answer; I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of blogging is.

   Cheers Paolo

Old NID
84378

Donate

Please donate so science experts can write for the public.

At Science 2.0, scientists are the journalists, with no political bias or editorial control. We can't do it alone so please make a difference.

Donate with PayPal button 
We are a nonprofit science journalism group operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that's educated over 300 million people.

You can help with a tax-deductible donation today and 100 percent of your gift will go toward our programs, no salaries or offices.

Latest reads

Article teaser image
Donald Trump does not have the power to rescind either constitutional amendments or federal laws by mere executive order, no matter how strongly he might wish otherwise. No president of the United…
Article teaser image
The Biden administration recently issued a new report showing causal links between alcohol and cancer, and it's about time. The link has been long-known, but alcohol carcinogenic properties have been…
Article teaser image
In British Iron Age society, land was inherited through the female line and husbands moved to live with the wife’s community. Strong women like Margaret Thatcher resulted.That was inferred due to DNA…