New, now scientists can use blogs to talk to other scientists about science!

I collect articles on scientists using blogs and twitter. Mostly because it’s relevant to my dissertation, but also because I find them interesting. You can see a listing here: (used to be displayed on my UM page, but that broke in the transition).

So one of these articles that I saw tweeted by about five people at the same time is Wolinsky, H. (2011). More than a blog. EMBO reports 12, 1102 - 1105. doi:10.1038/embor.2011.201 .

Of course it starts with the arsenic life discussion. It talks about the immediacy of the blog reaction and the tone of the discussion on the blogs.  Overall a nice article.

I think the subtitle of the piece is unfair. It acts like the title of this post when the article itself is more about where blogs have evolved to right now. There are a lot of differing experiences with blogs and differing uses, some of which have always been talking shop.

4 responses so far

  • Coturnix says:

    The article will disappear behind paywall on December 1st. Save it or read it before then.

  • Grant says:

    Larry Moran has written about Wolinsky’s article; I’ve made a very brief mention of it myself. My only addition to Larry’s thoughts was a concern that those new to science blogs—presumably Wolinsky’s target audience—might have been well served with an explicit list of the different types of content science blogs offer, rather than scattering references to the different types of content through the article, and to emphasis that readers can narrow in what serves their interests or needs without needing to concern themselves with whatever else there might be. I realise mine is a nitpick, but I worried that those not familiar with science blogging would be left with a confused impression. (Justified or not - I've no idea!)

    • Christina Pikas says:

      You're right about how the article could have been better structured. I think some of the best tutorials have been more saying that these are examples of how blogs are used but what matters is the value the author gets from it. I read the title/subtitle and I was going to tear into the article but then I read the rest and thought it wasn't bad as far as these go.