Science, journalism or public discourse?
Maxine Clarke
Monday, 23 February 2009 16:08 UTC
More researchers should engage with the blogosphere, including authors of papers in press, according to an Editorial in tomorrow’s issue of Nature (457, 1058; 2009, free to access online). The ambiguity of blogging’s status means that clarification is needed about Nature publications’ procedures, and about how embargoes apply to blogs. It also highlights more generally the potential importance of scientists engaging in the blogosphere.
The Editorial outlines the rules of online engagement for scientists so far as those publishing in Nature journals are concerned, concluding:
“The blogosphere differs from mass media and specialized media in many respects, but the same considerations apply in disseminating new scientific results there. Authors of papers in press have the right to correct misrepresentations and to point to results that will appear in a paper. But a full discussion should await the paper’s publication.
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.”
The Nature journals’ polices on embargoes and communication between scientists.
Our polices on confidentiality and pre-publicity.
We look forward to your views.
Updated 25 February 2009 18:39 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Note: The Nature embargo lifts at 1800 h GMT on the Wednesday evening before the Thursday publication date.
-
This editorial is quite timely in relation not only to the growing use of blogs in science but to shifts in the curriculum for university science undergraduates and postgraduates.
Though some members of the younger generation are quite adept at blogging and other forms of online communication, many are not. University science students also differ widely in their predisposition toward communicating online, much as their elders do.
A team of us at universities in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Singapore would like to figure out what to teach science students about using ‘new media’ and how to teach it. We are currently preparing a grant proposal to that end.
We would welcome comments on what to address, not only technical abilities but social conventions, such as when to blog and when not to.
Will Rifkin, PhD
Director, Science Communication Program
Faculty of Science, The University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia — willrifkin@unsw.edu.au -
Thanks for the question, Will – I hope others will respond here. I’ll be checking back later so can provide some suggestions myself if others from bone fide scientists who blog are not forthcoming.
In the meantime, there has been discussion previously on Nature Network about this topic: I refer you in particular to this post by Martin Fenner which sums up many aspects well. Why do we blog and other important questions, answerd by 34 science bloggers. Martin’s blog archive reveals other pertinent posts on this topic, for example this one for science educators who are interested in using blogs for their teaching activities.
There is also a current discussion about the benefits of blogging in the web 2.0 Nature Network forum, here.
I also suggest you might use the tags on Nature Network to retreive some of the earlier discussions.One negative view about blogging for scientists has just been expressed in the web 2.0 forum discussion about the benefits of the medium. PhD student Maya Kennard writes :
I think is blogging is a WASTE of time for a busy (that is busy) scientist.
Scientific research already requires
-study of literature,
-contemplation,
-discussion,
-attending seminars,
-bench work or mentoring
-and grant writing, reviewing.
Add to that family and social life, and SLEEP, where is the time? What super-extra benefits blogging brings that you want to compromise any of the above? -
I should also add a link to this post by Katherine Haxton: Can science blogging enhance your research life?. There is an associated presentation which is online at Slide Share. (Thus, perhaps, neatly demonstrating one useful aspect of online science communication?)
-
This is a great editorial! It is really important to have clear guidelines on things like blogging and scientist lead communication. I hope that other publishers follow this example and clarify/publicize their guidance on the issue.
(and it really helps those of us who blog to have Nature defining policies on the subject and writing words of encouragement)
-
As I just said in my own forum thread somewhere – my head is spinning. I must sit down and think about blogging, but (perhaps ironically) can’t find the time right now. I promise a blog post! The editorial was definitely food for thought. To, me, not so much in terms of content, but the medium.
I have at one point (pdf ) compared news articles in Science and Nature at the start of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, to see how the Zeitgeist was represented in science journals, and this editorial is also so very…now. I love it! =) -
I find myself perplexed upon reading this editorial. The title and concluding remarks would appear to constitute a call to blogging. It is nice to have the Nature editorial imprimatur on such a call but you don’t really expand on why one should blog.
OTOH, the editorial is quite focused on embargo breaking and Nature acceptance rules which appears to be the real purpose here. Reiterating what the editorial claims to be a long standing set of policies will have no effect on opening up science communication pre-pub, until and unless you dismantle the perception (a highly valid one) that placing data in pre-print servers or indeed publishing an abstract in a meeting proceedings journal issue will not detrimentally affect the chance of a manuscript being accepted for publication.
-
Drug Monkey – links to the longstanding Nature policies on embargo, and the reasons for it, and confidentiality are in this post here. Scientists have for about 30 years posted preprints on ArXiv (and its precursor) and published subseqently in Nature. For the past 3 years, those not in the physical sciences have posted them at Nature Precedings. For the past 10s of years, they have published conference abstracts and PhD theses (see links provided in post). If you doubt the truth of this, you are welcome to ask any of the several thousands of them who have done so over the years, and subsequently published in Nature (and, latterly, the Nature journals).
-
Will, you might want to contact Wolfgang Nellen: , he uses an online forum to teach undergraduate genetics class. And the recent ScienceOnline09 blogging conference had an interesting session on using blogs to teach science to undergraduates (Teaching college science: blogs and beyond).
-
well perhaps I should back off the “highly valid” part and stick to perceptions. And I will admit that I am talking about bioscientists, not the physicists.
Think of this. Even having essentially zero peeps I discuss career issues with in the physical sciences, I’ve been aware of the ArXiv thing for quite some time. Had no idea there was a Nature Procedings until recently, looked into it for a couple of search terms in my domain and found next to nothing. My colleagues in labs that duke it out in the GlamourMagz with regularity didn’t know about this and suggest they would never in a million years submit to such a thing. Why? because of the perception about decision criteria for acceptance for publication.
So one of two things. Either this is a reality that it would indeed affect the publication decision or it is not. If the former, you need to think hard about what it is you are trying to accomplish. If not, you have a massive PR problem.
The PR problem might possibly be helped by editorials like the one under discussion including some general stats by scientific domain regarding acceptance of previously pre-published work.
Results
-
