Posts Tagged ‘Blogging’

Slow Blogging versus Speedy Twittering

April 1, 2009 1 comment

A bit late perhaps, but as I am chatting away with a friend who Twitters, I realize one of the benefits of Twittering over Blogging (or any other type of “authoring” really).

“Let me take an exceptionally educated guess: you not actually being a member of the Twitter community? Sounds great indeed; where do I (and, for that matter, the rest of the world) sign up?”

In your dreams and my nightmares. See, one of the principles of successful change management is to, as quickly as possible, achieve success. Reaching that milestone, no matter how small is it, will give people the feeling of being productive and useful. Reaching milestone after milestone, no matter how small they are, is an experience that strongly motivates people to (continue to) do things.

There are many times when I thought of something quick that I wanted to write about, but refrained from doing so because my mind went “I cannot just write stuff down. I will have to take my time and think about it, then write a draft, then spend quite a bit of time reviewing and rewriting that draft into a coherent and complete story”.

“Huh? When have you ever used that procedure for this blog?”

I am doing it even now. So the idea that I had to spend a lot of time to share what I felt was a very little nugget of wisdom was not exactly motivating. Which is kind of insane since blogging was the Twitter before Twitter! It was an easy outlet of whatever one wanted to say online right there and then, quick and dirty! Format be damned! But when blogging became a more serious activity for professionals, the people behind Twitter had to look for the next format where “quick and dirty” was the rule, no exceptions. By limiting it to 140 characters, they have successfully captured, no… abducted the “quick and dirty” feel and complemented it with the “repeatedly strive for quick achievements, no matter how small” concept.

No wonder they called it Twitter: it sounds and means something fast, whereas “blog” sounds slow and its definition reminds me of something slow. If there ever was an alien called “Blog”, you know it would be something big, fat, wobbling with multiple layers of whatever.

“Hey, leave the snark to me! Anyway, abducted is a strong word; I predict a new service that will have even a lower maximum limit of characters reaching great heights of popularity!”

Not an impossible theory. Still, how articulate can one be with even fewer characters? Wait, do I even want to know?

Wobbling Blogger Out.

Categories: Web (2.0) Tags: , ,

The value of (Scientific) Blogs to Scholarly Communication?

April 20, 2008 Leave a comment

Motivation: Exploring the role of the (scientific) blogs in contrast to the traditional ways of scholarly communication.

Problem statement: The role of blogs to support scholarly communication is regularly questioned. Given the strictness of the scientific method, how does the free for all “shotgun” culture of blogs fit in, if at all?

Findings: Blogs to highlight “interesting” scientific findings: suitable, although there are more efficient ways to do so (such as RSS of big scientific news/journal sites and initiatives like Connotea). Then again, as a “new” medium for these kind of things, it is highly suitable. After all, blogs are hot now, and you gotta go with the flow! Blogs to generate scientific communication: suitable, but other initiatives such as forums generally offer better features to support discussions. Blogs to contribute original scientific knowledge: lack of accountability, structure and seemingly effort. It is vastly inferior to preprints, i.e. the scientific paper format, so good luck with that.

Conclusion: We may need something that combines the convenient and efficient services of Connotea with the ease of blogging/forums to efficiently update the scientific folks with the relevant findings and generate discussions.

As I have addressed in an earlier post: the scientific paper format has been designed very efficiently. Journal paper abstracts inform the readers of the topic, the problems, the methodologies, the results, the conclusions and ultimately the added value of the papers in one paragraph. Much like a very short summary of the paper, which is also usually free to read, regardless of whether the paper is Open Access or not. This is done to give readers a short text of the paper so they can decide whether the paper is covering the relevant aspects for them to read in more detail. Afterwards, all these elements, and in particular the methodology, results and conclusion, appear in a more detailed description, so feed the need for information.

This is traditionally missing in blogs, because, they are not an outlet for original research work, but somewhat of an alternative communication channel of already original published works. And even when bloggers blog about peer reviewed/published articles, there is rarely a mention of what is theirs and what is simply from the article but reworded in their own words. That being the case, the added value is then a somewhat personal quality filter with no original scientific added value other than the reference to the original article. And in that case, there are other initiatives that can point scholars to relevant papers that are much more efficient, such as the free online reference management by Nature called Connotea which makes sharing and finding papers rather simple.

Anyway, that scientific blogs traditionally lack (1) a standard format/structure and (2) original scientific information, are rather significant issues to question the usefulness of blogs. Improving the original added value with scientific blogs, while still emphasizing their speedy and easy accessibility, are seemingly difficult to realize, enforce and sustain. I blogged about a standard scientific blog format before, in response to the first issue. However, I am unsure of how appealing such an idea is. Scientific bloggers might not find the idea of adding an extra paragraph (blog abstract if you will) describing their original value (or lack thereof) very interesting. Let us see how some of the research blogging community try to solve the second issue.

Research Blogging by BPR3

BPR3 allows readers to easily find blog posts about serious peer-reviewed research, instead of just news reports and press releases. We provide bloggers with an icon they can use to show when they’re talking about a peer-reviewed work that they’ve read and analyzed closely.

Great idea, I am all for more (optional) quality filters. Assuming it is accurate, it could significantly contribute to the advance of scholarly communication and science in general. However, when going through their guidelines, it seems like they envision doing more than just being a scientific quality filter of blog posts. And there is nothing wrong with trying to add more value to the scientific community, by way of blogs, but I think there are some very complex issues at hand here. Let me address the guidelines that focus on the original value: #4, #5 and #7.

4. The post author should have read and understood the entire work cited.
5. The blog post should report accurately and thoughtfully on the research it presents.
7. The post should contain original work by the post author — while some quoting of others is acceptable, the majority of the post should be the author’s own work.

In theory, I think these are significant guidelines. In practice, I wonder whether they are actually enforceable and sustainable. For one, I have a hard time imaging that their reviewers can actually read every paper/article that a blog references to, and then use that knowledge to verify whether the blog authors themselves understand the scientific works they are linking to. Even if they can right now, it is difficult to maintain sustainability if and when the scientific blog community grows. Additionally, I would have to ask how this process is answerable? Who is responsible for making sure bloggers adhere to these guidelines? What is their experience/background? How do we know they did what they said they would do? How do we measure this?

Assuming it can be enforced and sustained, we could be talking about some pretty significant sacrifices for these activities. I mean, they are solid guidelines. In fact, they are so solid that they are much like the requirements for scholars participating in journal peer reviews. So if they do have the skills to perform these quality assurance activities, is it efficient to use their time evaluating already peer reviewed papers to certify a blog post that may or may not have original added value? Come to think of it, what is considered original value for blog posts anyway? For Research Blogging by BPR3, it includes the rewriting and summarizing of the article in their own words. So added value: yes. New knowledge: no. To be fair, if the blog posts concern errors or other things worthy of concern for published papers, then that would be very meaningful, but just to validate a blog post that highlights how interesting the research is? Or to generate a discussion, which may be more suitable for forums? Or a summary/rewrite of the original article? Is that not a lot of effort for little gain as opposed to, say, peer reviewing unrefereed manuscripts (i.e. preprints) for journal publication, which might truly have some real original knowledge to share with the scientific community?

In fact, if they have to blog & review scientific literature, why not blog & review preprints? That way, they can actually provide original value by contributing to validating the so far unrefereed scientific knowledge. It might even support the journal peer review process. Either directly by submitting these blog peer reviews or after the author has improved the scrutinized manuscript. Much more productive and efficient if you ask me. Of course, reviewing preprints is a bit more challenging (and risky) than just covering peer reviewed publications (i.e. postprints), but if you are going to blog about and scrutinize blogs on scientific knowledge, might as well do it right and focus on stuff that has yet to be validated?

“Well, that is only assuming that the people verifying peer reviewed publications have the right expertise and the time to do the same to unrefereed manuscripts.”

Well, I suppose there is a difference between understanding a scientific article and being able to scrutinize it. I wonder if that is the real issue at hand here?

“I ought to be for you, you’ve never done a formal journal peer review before!”

Well, aside from the fact that I was still not sure what I thought of this initiative on a more serious level, that is why I never bothered to apply for “membership”. However, most of these bloggers that are getting these BPR3 tags do not strike me as people that are unable to perform proper peer reviews. But it is true that it takes significantly less time and effort to cover peer reviewed publications as opposed to peer reviewing preprints. So on a less serious note, blogs do provide that quick and dirty highlights of scientific literature. And since blogs are so popular right now, and probably will stay that for quite some time, I guess there is some advantage of going with the flow to reach out to others? It is hard to make up my mind about this, I guess it requires some more thinking on it.

More on the original value of blogs
Over at RealClimate, a blog post concerning the value of blogs and peer review received quite a few comments. A lot of those posts concerns something about climate physics, and I will not go into that because they confuse the hell out of a non-climate guy like me, but I found this particular comment by Myles Allen rather interesting:

I personally would never comment critically in public on a peer-reviewed paper even to point out “obvious problems” (who is the judge of what is obvious here?) without at least exchanging e-mails with the authors to make sure I had understood it correctly (I’m more than happy to criticize non-peer-reviewed material on Channel 4).

I appreciate that publish-first-and-ask-questions-later is “traditional” practice in blogging, but perhaps, as scientists, we should be challenging that practice.

As far as I am concerned, anything that is published and made publicly available, is free to be criticized. In fact, if there are indeed flaws in it, it should be pointed out for the sake of the other readers and scientific progress in general. However, I also agree that, in terms of scientific papers, that should only be done when you are sure of your case. We would not want it to be a standard practice for mudslinging, reputation smearing, eye gouging dirty fights, after all. And indeed, one way of keeping it civilized while trying to provide value is to contact the authors. Additionally, this could also potentially prevent public embarrassment for both parties. One issue with this measure is that it would significantly slow down or even discourage the concept of criticizing peer reviewed/ published research papers. I mean, what if they wait a long time before responding or simply do not respond at all? And the whole idea of blogs is that it is a fast (and easy) communication medium, and removing that element would remove the key motive for the popularity for blogs I think.

Myles Allen continues this over at Nature’s Climate Feedback blog post on Web 2.0:

Just to be clear, I don’t have a problem with blogging per se, if bloggers were to comply with the old-fashioned courtesy of checking with the authors that they have understood a paper correctly before criticizing it in public (as opposed to over coffee or the conference bar).

If bloggers on high-profile sites like RealClimate were to adopt a simple policy of fact-checking comments on papers with the papers’ authors before posting them, and if necessary posting a response from the authors together with their post, it would certainly be a vast improvement on current practice. The argument that the authors can always respond on the blog doesn’t work, because the responsibility for fact-checking should surely be with the blogger, not his or her unsuspecting targets.

As I agree that preventing is better than curing, I think this is a strong point as well. However, going back to the self-corrective nature of scholarly communication: one can also reason that if the blog is sufficiently popular/significant, the truth will come out one way or the other. Either through other blogs responding to it, or in the comments of that blog post. And if the blog is not popular/significance, then nobody will take notice of it, anyhow. So while risky, it is not an impossible situation to correct. Of course, and this is particularly true for blogs, in between the time of sharing faulty information and the correction, it could have traveled quite far already. Hmm, dilemma.

“What? No closing paragraph to give a sense of closure to this piece?”

I guess I should, but I cannot think of any. Then again, a lack of closure kind of fits this topic, considering its young and dynamic nature. So I guess I will write something extra in the “blog abstract” and forgo writing a “that’s all, folks!” paragraph.

Getting This Blogging Thing Down Pat!

April 20, 2008 1 comment

Motivation: As I am a more and more active blogger, I think it is only productive that I go and explore the ways of success with blogging, in order to improve the quality of my blog.
Problem statement: Unsure how to reach out to the right communities to add value. So time to see what I am doing right/wrong!
Findings: Overall, I score pretty OKish on most of those points. Except that I have not been very involved with the rest of the scientific blogging community, and, likewise, I do not plug my own stuff enough on other blogs.
Conclusion: In order for this blog to have more “success”, I need to mingle some more with my fellow bloggers and shamelessly advertise myself some more. I am unsure whether I feel like doing the latter, but mingling with the rest of the community sounds very productive to me.

Over at Nature’s Blog forum, I found an interesting reference to an article by senior editor of Wired magazine, Paul Boutin, who writes about ‘what a number of successful bloggers with successful nonblogging careers say are the ways to think about getting into the business of blogging’ in “So You Want to Be a Blogging Star?”

So let us sum them up and see how I am doing.

“You mean we, of course!”

Don’t expect to get rich.

Well, I got that one down pat, for sure!

“I am already happy if we don’t lose money over this!”

Write about what you want to write about, in your own voice.

Definitely check this one, too. And I feel I can truly write what I want to write about given that I am somewhat anonymous. And that helps with the unrestricted thing, but perhaps less in the credibility department. In addition, I can do more than express myself in my own voice: I have a special web based alter-ego to assist me with the writing and talking thing! Thus I have in fact two voices! Points for extra effort!

“I certainly deserve credit for the added value! In fact, without me, none of this would have been possible!”

Fit blogging into the holes in your schedule.

“Well, you’re a bum. So this one is pathetically easy. Which is pathetic.”

I cannot argue with that…

Just post it already! The hurdle that stops many would-be bloggers is fear of clicking the “Publish” button.

Hmm, I can say I have experienced this as well. I still got a bunch of drafts I have not posted because I feel they lack something. But it is also true that I regularly go back to published blog posts to modify them without any advanced warning. Hmm, what a dilemma.

“The signs of a low quality blog for sure.”

Keep a regular rhythm.

Check. I try to think up of some new relevant stuff to write and write about them as much as I think I can.

Join the community, such as it is. There’s an unwritten rule — actually, it’s written about a lot on blogs — that you should always link back to bloggers whose ideas you repeat, or from whom you get a cool link to another site.

Checking again. I believe proper crediting others is important. I therefore also reference the “intermediate” sources that lead me to the main source as well. Such as Nature’s blog forum thread in this case. And I have bookmarked a whole bunch of interest blogs that I like to visit and occasionally comment on just to join the fray.

Plug yourself. That’s what all the name-brand bloggers do. It’s not bad form to send a short note to a prominent blogger drawing his or her attention to a really good blog you wrote.

Have not mastered this one yet. I am not into directly advertising my blog posts. I find that somewhat sleazy. On the other hand, plenty of sites that are made exactly for this purpose, and would be happy to allow such self plugging. I just have not made up my mind to join them just yet.

So there we have it. Conclusively, I think I can somewhat score pretty well. And I am of course content with my blog and the posts in it. Even though the amount of visitors may be low. I guess I am not doing it for the success anyhow.

“I should think so, because you’ve never had any. Which would make that goal a little bit odd, to say the least!”

Categories: Web (2.0) Tags: ,

Towards a standardized scientific blogging format

March 13, 2008 Leave a comment

While still uncertain of the added value of blogging to scholarly communication, I have decided to offer an idea to make it more efficient in terms of providing the right information to scholars.

“You shameless and weak minded hypocrite…”

Nah not exactly, thinking this one through has made me realize a few more things about the value of scientific blogging. Thus I can say that this has had some value to me, I believe. Anyhow, I will discuss this in more detail in a later blog post, so I can keep this one regarding my idea as clear and concise as possible. My proposal concerns adding a standardized format/style to scientific blogging, taking elements of the journal paper format and style: the scientific blog abstract. Observe:

With the (scientific) digital communities’ increasing interest in a concept known as “scientific blogging”, there is a need to optimize this new communication channel for the sake of professional appeal and overall effectivity and efficiency of the communication. As academics are generally busy ladies and gentlemen in pursuit of knowledge, providers of said knowledge have to be as clear and as concise as inhumanly possible to pinpoint that relevancy. Assuredly, academics need to know what is being done, for what reason it is being done and why it utilizes a particular approach. That is how academics can decide whether they see the significance in committing their time to it or simply leave it alone.

Problem statement
Unlike journal papers, blogs are loose cannons: they lack a standardized structure. This runs the risk of reducing the readability and therefore the appeal of the blog posts in question. As journals and scholarly communication in general have demonstrated: scholars prefer standardized templates, as they have a record of improving the readability and writability of journal papers [Anderson, 2004]. A reasonable stance surely, as nobody wants to guess the order of chapters with each new book they read nor start with a technical study book without knowing beforehand what skills it is suppose to teach you. It is even more important in a professional working environment.

The approach I took to address this problem was very straightforward: I analyzed the journal paper’s style and format, to verify which elements would match a blog post. Of course, there can be confusion in determining which elements were relevant and which were not. One visually obvious characteristic of blog posts is that they are generally significantly shorter than journal papers. Accordingly, the suggestions I make here regarding requirements to style and format concerning scientific blog posting will start out “low”. I define the proper use of style and format proportionate to the “volume” of blog content. Given the theoretical nature of this project, there will be no immediate measurements and validations carried out to confirm the results. The results are derived from the scholarly community’s standard format and style of the primary communication channel of (new) scientific literature and adjusted to this new communication channel.

“Uh, doesn’t that mean you are throwing out a conclusion based on something similarly related, but not quite? With a complete lack of even experimental confirmation? That’s not credible!

Hmm, what to do what to do. I suppose I could visit some of the bigger science blogging scenes around the net and see what they think. Ah well, for now let me finish writing this piece first.

By reviewing the elements of the journal paper style and format, I can say that there are elements that are suitable for every serious scientific blog post. For instance, at least two elements of the journal paper format and style are always applicable to whatever type of blog post a scholar makes, and those two are: Motivation and Problem Statement. As every blog post should have a point: What is the added value of this blog post? Why should this post be interesting to me, the reader? And that is closely related to the problem statement: what issue are we trying to address/solve? Concerning the relevancy of the Approach and Results sections, if the blog post truly contains added value, such as original (research) work by the blog author, then addressing these two elements is relevant.

Scientific blog posts should have a standardized format to stay consistent with the efficiency and professionalism of academics communicating with each other (scholarly communication). This blog post proposes that scientific blogs should adapt the format and style of a journal paper to more efficiently and effectively support academics with finding what they want to read. And at the same time to encourage (scientific) blog authors to think their own story through and work on adding original value by asking them to first “preface” the main blog post content with a description of said added value. Indeed, it is what I would like to call the scientific blog abstract.

“By the way, an abstract is normally only one paragraph, not a freaking page, you poser!”

Settle down, I am just throwing out more food for thought to enhance this “self-proclaimed” relatively original and potentially significant contribution to the scientific blogging movement.


  • Anderson, G. 2004, “How to Write A Paper in Scientific Journal Style and Format”. Website. Bates College. Retrieved March 11, 2008: Link
  • Koopman, P. 1997, “How to Write an Abstract”. Website. Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved March 11, 2008: Link