August 01, 2011 | By: Nick Morris

Aa Aa Aa

Blogging: "Blogging is not real publishing…"

A couple of weeks ago I was in a PedR (Pedagogical Research) meeting in which we were discussing our current (and future) teaching research projects, and any teaching research publications we may have coming up.

I pointed out that I was now blogging on Scitable about eLearning, and that in the last 6 months or so I had written over 60 posts. I was then told by a colleague that blogging doesn't count towards my PedR work as it is not peer reviewed. So, that got me thinking… Is blogging really publishing, as in the academic sense of publishing with peer review? Or, is it just a waste of time?

Personally I think blogging is publishing, and that it is peer reviewed. Blogging may not be peer reviewed as in the anonymous non-transparent peer review process used in scientific research publication, but it is peer reviewed in the sense that anyone can make a comment on a blog post. In a way you could argue that blogging is a better platform for publication than the traditional scientific route, as blogging is more open, and the review (comment) process is transparent, and not closed and anonymous as seen in the traditional scientific publications.

By the way, if you think it is just me saying this after a week of blogging about blogging then you might like to have a look at: Post Publication Peer Review: Blogs vs Letters to the Editor, which discusses the idea of using blogging PPPR (post publication peer review); and Blogs: face the conversation, which looks at the use of blogs in general. The 'Post Publication Peer Review: Blogs vs Letters to the Editor' post makes a very good argument for the use of blogs in looking at scientific papers post-publication, and the post on 'Blogs: face the conversation' really brings home the use of blogs in science and learning.

So, what do you think? Is blogging 'real' publication? Why not add some peer review below?

(By the way, if you are wondering about the above image I have based it on the international hazardous substances symbol, that is, a red boarded diamond with the hazard in the centre.)

6 Comments

August 05, 2011 | 09:24 AM

Posted By: Khalil A. Cassimally

Brook, interesting point. Although I never thought of it this way, I was trying to point out how that blogging entails 'review' by people who may not know how science works (i.e. the scientific method). THIS is much less valuable than good ol' peer review.

August 02, 2011 | 11:48 AM

Posted By: Brook Clinton

Khalil, if you're saying that review by someone with a deep knowledge of the field distinguishes peer review then currrent methods may not stand up to this criterion either. How often is an article under review passed on to a postdoc or other, but the review submitted in the PI's name?
With an open system surely even an 'unknown' can display their 'deep knowledge of the field'. The wider audience can then use their reading comprehension and follow sources/citations to create a much more reliable feedback loop?

August 02, 2011 | 08:27 AM

Posted By: Nick Morris

Khalil A. Cassimally: "Subtle difference between peer review and comments from readers though." - yes, there is, and I take your point on people knowing about the subject, and those who do not. However, I would argue that people who don't have 'deep knowledge' may be able to bring something to the discussion. Therefore, I would consider it as 'peer review'.

Simon Cockell: Yes, I am aware of the Knowledgeblog project (http://knowledgeblog.org/). Good comment for those who don't.

Michelle Francl: Thanks for the pointer to (http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n3/full/nchem.991.html) (Warning: Behind paywall and no comments can be left), it was an interesting read and does cover a lot of the above. Unfortunately I was unable to access the paper by Murray, R. W. - Science Blogs and Caveat Emptor - Anal. Chem. 82, 8755 (2010).

August 01, 2011 | 06:09 PM

Posted By: Khalil A. Cassimally

Subtle difference between peer review and comments from readers though. Comments can be left by anyone, including people who have a deep knowledge of the subject and those who do not. As such, blogging cannot be considered peer review.

Rather, it is more of a crowdsource/community exchange of information. The blogger shares his writing and is open to criticism (positive and negative) by readers. Those critics add extra value and contribute to the exchange of information.

August 01, 2011 | 03:01 PM

Posted By: Simon Cockell

Are you aware of the Knowledgeblog project (http://knowledgeblog.org/)? It's a Newcastle-based experiment in a blog-based (Wordpress) peer-reviewed publication framework.

I see no reason why blogging shouldn't be considered 'real' publication. In some ways this is a perception problem, the Andrew Marr view of bloggers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/11/andrew-marr-bloggers) predominates, and an image change is probably necessary (or the word 'blog' avoided, this is just a publication engine - nothing more, nothing less).

I certainly think it is possible to argue that the open peer-review supported by blogging platforms is superior to anonymous, closed peer-review. Not least because it allows credit for these activities to be appropriately accorded, whereas currently time spent reviewing papers & grants is effectively lost time.

August 01, 2011 | 02:29 PM

Posted By: Michelle Francl

I wrote a piece for Nature Chemistry earlier this year (http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n3/full/nchem.991.html) making a similar argument. Blogging about the primary literature is "real" scholarly activity!

It's a feedback loop...searchable, critique-able

Blogging: "Blogging is not real publishing…"

share

Email your Friend