From the blogosphere

    According to a recent online survey, most biologists don't read science blogs or participate in social networking sites (see discussion at Gobbledygook blog http://tinyurl.com/5psqp3). Biologists prefer to read the literature; Web 2.0 sites for scientists haven't yet built up a reputation for accuracy; and online tools useful to scientists are unlikely to be found on Facebook or Digg. Does this mean that Web 2.0 (the name sometimes given to the interactive web) is not working for biologists, or just that it is too new for them?

    Right now, the different pieces of Web 2.0 don't quite fit together to provide a useful, seamless service for most biologists, says Gobbledygook author Martin Fenner — although the story is different for chemistry, as is mentioned in the comments section of his blog. But one route to such a project's success is to focus on how it can improve science, rather than get distracted by all possible uses of the technology. An example: Web 2.0 should make the process of paper writing much easier, through online writing, reference sharing, and collaboration and coordination tools.

    Additional information

    Visit Nautilus for regular news relevant to Nature authors → http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus and see Peer-to-Peer for news for peer reviewers and about peer review → http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer .

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and Permissions

    About this article

    Cite this article

    From the blogosphere. Nature 453, xii (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/7192xiic

    Download citation

    Comments

    By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.