Blogger coverage of scientific conferences
Anna Kushnir
Tuesday, 26 August 2008 17:36 UTC
The upcoming Democratic and Republican conventions in the US have embraced bloggers as never before, as described in this article in the NY Times. Politicians and convention organizers have come to understand the importance of blogs as new and emerging media outlets. Both have decided to offer special blogger privileges and access to a record number of bloggers. Convention details will be broadcast almost real time, not only on television and in newspapers, but also on the blogosphere.
Are scientists slower to progress toward new media than politicians? [No shaming in that question is intended.] It seems as though scientific conferences still remain largely closed to bloggers and the public. There are many reasons for this, including the presentation of sensitive and unpublished data as well as the high registration costs for most conferences. However, would there be an audience for blogger coverage of scientific conferences, if the opportunity was presented? Is that something that the scientific and general communities would benefit from? If so, why is it not happening?
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Some people who recently attended the Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology meeting took notes and live"blogged" in a FriendFeed room. and it seemed that other people who weren’t there enjoyed the live coverage.
Of course these people were mostly computer-types, and live blogging conferences in the tech/internet area has been going on for a while. (Just do a Google Search for the phrase “live blogging” and “conference” to see a bunch of them.)I think it’s not happening because there is a certain stigma attached to people tapping away on their keyboards during what is supposed to be a serious science seminar. But in fields where it’s normal to take notes on a laptop while things are going on it’s much easier to liveblog.
-
Three problems come to mind: one technical and two social/legal. First there is the problem of internet access at many of these conferences. I’ve attended a surprising number of conferences where there is either no internet access, flakey internet access, or per diem internet access (sometimes at rates of $30 a day).
Second, I think that many people in science would consider it rude to liveblog their talk without their explicit prior permission. It’s my impression that many scientists don’t know what liveblogging is, and even if they do, they don’t know what the repercussions would be if they allowed it. For example, are bloggers considered to be part of the media and, if one is discussing research in press at a journal, would this then violate any news embargoes at the journal?
Third, many conference organizers may be nervous about people liveblogging their events, as they may think that people may just follow the liveblog rather than attending the conference (and paying the conference fees). I suspect that allowing liveblogging would pay off in terms of free publicity. For example, allowing liveblogging at most of the O’Reilly conferences has only increased the cachet of the events.
-
We had a useful discussion on this topic previously at Nature Network but I cannot find it using the search engine so cannot provide a link, how frustrating. Maybe someone reading this will remember.
I do echo Hilary’s points. In these days of data protection legislation, as well as individuals’ concerns about being scooped, people intending to blog a conference should at a minimum check first with the organisers. Some journals (not the Nature journals) consider meeting reports as prior publication and so blogging a conference might jeaopordise publication of the work if a blog is considered a “publication” (another grey area worthy of a post and discussion in its own right!). And some conferences (eg the Gordon conferences) make it a condition of attendance that the work presented is not publicised.
Putting all the “boring admin” to one side, I agree with Eva about the heady quality of liveblogging, it has lots of advantages. On the other hand, this type of coverage is not as reflective as, say, a meeting report written afterwards, which can provide a synthesis, or at least, more context.
-
There are certainly multiple issues to publicizing unpublished data. Why does it not apply to the ISMB conference that Eva mentioned? Speakers at that conference also presented unpublished findings. Many of these concerns seem to apply specifically, or most potently to biological sciences.
While I also understand the problems with live-blogging conference sessions, I think there is a great amount of benefit to blogging the conference in general. Setting up press-like media rooms with decent internet connections would foster blogging at all points during the conference.
Good point about the cost of the conference registration, Hilary. That part hadn’t occurred to me. But again, it could be seen as free advertising, working to promote the significance and impact of the topics discussed at the conference. No amount of blogging could substitute for actually being there.
-
Not being a researcher, I can say I’m watching it from the outside. First of all, I have the feeling that information in general doesn’t flow very easily in the scientific environment. It sounds a bit paradoxical to me, but that’s how I see it.
Having said that, I’d like to point out that people, as long as I know, don’t ask for permission to liveblog political conferences or tech meetings. They just type things in their cellphones adn twitter them. Or blog them. Even in events that are really expensive to attend, like the TED talks.
And that, I guess, would be unthinkable in scientific conferences, hence my comment that the information flows with difficulty. Does it make any sense for you?
-
Information really doesn’t flow from scientific conferences at all, so I think you are right on point. That has to do a lot with the proprietary/monetary/unpublished science issues that were mentioned above. As for the political conferences, the NY Times article on the subject talks about the contests bloggers enter to win/be chosen for official during the conventions. I think it says something for the progress of blogging as new media – bloggers are being acknowledged as members of the media and are being granted rights in accordance (although not as many rights as actual print/TV journalists).
So no, I don’t think there is anything explicitly preventing people from live-blogging or blogging in general during conferences (aside from lack of wi-fi or other blogger-friendly facilities). People are still not doing it though. It is not generally accepted. Should it be? Is there more harm or more benefit to broadcasting the contents of scientific conferences over the blogosphere?
-
Barbara: I think the issue is that the people talking at the conference are intending to publish the work formally in future. This would not be the case for “informal” talks eg political rally.
One of the generally accepted quality benchmarks in science is the process of (independent) peer-review. Previously unpublished work presented at a conference has not been peer reviewed, which raises various issues about the trustworthiness of the information.
“Hype” is a fact of life, but when it comes to scientific or other technical information, many people would prefer to have an independent quality control process in place, because the information is so technical and/or specialist that it cannot be judged by every reader (viewer/listener) on its own merits.
An extreme example would be a claim that a disease could be cured by a particular method or drug. -
Anna: On what you write about bloggers being considered as members of the media and being granted similar “rights”, there are various issues about that. For example, “regular” media is independently edited and published, blogs are not – often (usually) the writer is also the editor and publisher. “Regular” media is published by an organisation that is responsible for the content, to which the writer has to answer (eg justify factual content). Blogs are not (usually) – many of them are impulsive at best. “Regular” media is responsible for archiving, maintaining and upholding the content, and for having a tracked corrections policy so that changes are transparent (sadly, a process that is being treated increasingly casually even by big media organisations on the internet, though they are sometimes called on it by bloggers who have taken screenshots of erroneous content that has been later corrected! (eg the BBC) ). Blogs are not: there is nothing to stop a blogger from changing content after publication with no record of that fact.
These and various other factors are all relevant as to whether blogs are “publications”. -
Ah, I was just exiting this thread and when I went to the main forum page for this group, I saw Anna’s previous post on this topic. If you go there you can find the previous NN discussions on the liveblogging topic, via Martin Fenner’s characteristically helpful comment, which provides the relevant links!
Thanks, Martin — the earlier conversations on this topic are useful and pertinent to this one. -
In reply to Maxine’s comment, maybe we could consider the peer review process that is applied to science today as similar to the peer review /verification /approval process used by publications, that has been put aside by bloggers, thus making them more flexible and fast.
If this makes sense, then I would ask:
1 – blogs are not regulated the same way as traditional publication, and it brings advantages and problems (as you mentioned in you comment). Traditional media outlets still work the “old” way, which brings advantages and problems. Should there be a coexistence of the two “styles” (for the lack of a better word) in science? (today scoience lives only in the “old” model)
2 – If we consider that this agility /lack of regulation is a trend, do we want to keep science away from that? (not facing the problems, not enjoying the benefits)?
3 – If the answer for the question 2 is “yes”, then I’d like to know: is it possible?
Sometimes I have a feeling that things change, for better and for worse, and the scientific stablishment just wants to be kept from the changes, doing things the same way they were done 40 years ago.
(I’m sure that after saying that, someone will say I’m a complete idiot. But I’m risking that because I’d like to know your opinions about that)
Results
-
