Fascinating article in Nature, wherein the utility, vs. possible dangers of scientists' blogs are discussed. One of the interesting tensions in this piece is the one between those who are aware of, (or have faith in) the ways that social networks can act as a filter and sort out the good from the bad, and other folks. The key quotation in the piece, for me at least, is this:
"'In many areas of biology there's roughly a 1 in 3 chance one of your reviewers just won't like your point of view,'... If that were to happen to a Biology Direct paper, it would still be published. But anyone could read the naysayer's comment."
This article is a nice example of the growing pains science is going through, as we learn that the community (communities?) of science have emergent, self-organizing features, just like other social communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment