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
-
Drug Monkey – Yes there is plenty of discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of using preprint servers, some of which is at nature.com (for example, in our author policy website), including on Nature Network (where there is a Nature Precedings forum should you wish to join that discussion).
-
Heh. Forgot to actually make the point I came back to make.
I was thinking about why I don’t blog, but do join in this sort of thing: I don’t have a problem expressing my opinion in public (and being publicly horribly wrong), but what stuck me was that I join in conversations of various sorts, but I don’t seem to be able to do soliloquys. Maybe that’s fine..?
That said, I also write papers that frequently contain a big dollop of me banging on about something (they’re most policy-related things so there’s lots of room for opinions). I think I just may be too (cliched-)English (half-kidding) to presume to opine without proximal cause :(
-
I appreciate the advocating character of this editorial about “social science” and there are many reasons why this should be encouraged.
I noticed that many (spamming) comments have been removed. Is it possible to hide them completely? It is not very encouraging to browse to this non-information.
-
After consultation, the editors have decided to lock this thread to direct online comments. We welcome further contributions, which can be sent to me by email, and I will post them on your behalf.
-
Posted on behalf of Jon Copley of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK:
On the one hand Nature appears to be encouraging scientists to blog, while on the other its policy regarding pre-publication publicity is unchanged. So you can’t blog about any results that might make it into a Nature paper, particularly if journalists are following your blog. And if you can’t share the full process of science with a wider public, then blogging becomes a banal activity.
A recent example: last month my colleagues and I were on a research ship in the Southern Ocean, where we made some very exciting finds on the ocean floor. Being enlightened folk when it comes to public engagement, we were blogging from the ship and also running an outreach website for school children.
A few journalists were following our blog and outreach website, so it was clear that if we mentioned what we had actually found, media coverage would be very likely. As we hope to submit a paper to Nature about our finds, we therefore could not mention our discoveries in our blog. Nature’s policy in that regard remains unchanged: “Material submitted to Nature journals must not be discussed with the media”.
This is a pity, because our goal of blogging from the expedition was to give people – particularly school pupils – a chance to share in what it is actually like to do science in the field, outside of textbooks and classrooms. “Live” media coverage of what we were finding would have furthered that goal, by pointing a large audience to our outreach activities. But as we could not mention or discuss our actual discoveries, the blog became rather limited, e.g. what the weather was like and what we were having for dinner, which is not what meaningful public engagement is about.
I notice, however, that NASA does not seem to have this problem, for example blogging what its Mars rovers find, then still publishing papers about those finds in Nature. Yet the editorial states that “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.” To me, that says that unless you have a paper accepted, you cannot “point to results” that may eventually make it into a Nature paper.
Furthermore, what if someone with a paper in press “points to results” in it on their blog, which the media then cover and interpret erroneously? Under your new policy, an author has the right to “correct misrepesentations” – but how do they do that without providing “a full discussion” of their results?
Similarly, the statement that it is not a violation “if scientists respond to journalists’ queries in ensuring that the facts are correct — so long as they don’t actively promote media coverage” does little to clarify this grey area. At what point, exactly, does responding to queries become “active promotion” of coverage? Would the policy be interpreted post hoc on a case-by-case basis?
I suspect many researchers will make the same decision that we did: not to share their immediate discoveries with the public, if they hope to submit any results in Nature. That would perhaps be unfortunate; as your editorial notes, “there are societal debates that have much to gain from the uncensored voices of researchers”.
I do, of course, completely accept the value of the principle that scientists’ and the public’s best interests are served by press coverage of work that has been peer reviewed. But the new “policy” on blogging appears to be trying to have its cake and eat it in that regard. Allowing people to “point to results” in accepted papers, but not to provide a “full discussion”, seems to be paying lip service to science communication while actually preventing meaningful engagement. It would perhaps be more consistent to prohibit all communication of results until publication of the peer-reviewed paper – including lodging manuscripts in pre-print archives, which journalists do trawl through.
Best wishes,
Jon Copley
Moderator’s note: we are re-opening this forum for direct online comments, in the hope that future contributions to it will be on-topic. M.C.
-
I apologise, but we are having to close this discussion to direct comments. Further on-topic contributions are very welcome, please send to me by direct email and I will post on your behalf.
Thanks,
Maxine. -
A post on RealClimate.org, with the title Advice to a young climate blogger, providing good advice and summing up well some of the pros and cons for scientists thinking of embarking on blogging.
-
There is a special issue of Nature this week, 25 June 2009, containing several articles on aspects of scientific journalism, including the issues surrounding scientists blogging and microblogging (eg Twitter) at meetings. We welcome your views at this Nature Network Opinion forum post, where you will find a summary of and links to the articles.
Best wishes
Maxine.
Results
-
