Christina's LIS Rant
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
IEEE eScience: My Slides
Slightly more information in an earlier post.
Paper available only upon request until I figure out the rules (just e-mail me) - it will probably be in Xplore in a couple of months.
Slightly more information in an earlier post.
Paper available only upon request until I figure out the rules (just e-mail me) - it will probably be in Xplore in a couple of months.
Labels: IEEEeScience08, science blogging, sna
¶ 2:10 PM| (0) comments |cites (technorati) |
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Nature Geosciences Commentaries on Science Blogs
yeah, I know what I said about nature geosciences, but this is special, and you can get the article with free registration. (oh, yeah, they must be out to get bloggers to read their journal - there are also two commentaries on gender)
via: Peer-to-Peer
Both from the April 2008 (v1 n4) issue of Nature Geosciences.
To blog or not to blog? - p208
Gavin Schmidt
doi:10.1038/ngeo170
Some interesting points about the nuances of communicating science to the public and also why a member of the public won't really be able to access the science even if they can get physical access to an article. Talks about informal scholarly communication as "second-stage peer review." He oversells the ability of the average scientist to successfully translate all of the bumps and wiggles of the graph - but essentially, I think he's right on with using the stories told over time in a blog to transmit tacit knowledge.
Minority report - p209
Myles Allen
doi:10.1038/ngeo174
Starts with thinking that it's good to rebut rubbish reports, but then an article of his was rebutted on RealClimate and "By the time I heard about it...." My immediate response to that is surprise that he doesn't read that blog given the field he's in? I have a bunch of ego feeds in my name, surely I'd see articles written about me... So the author didn't rebut the misinterpretation, and this got trotted out later by journalists, etc. He seems to be suggesting that commentary and discussion on peer reviewed papers should be in and only in peer reviewed journals -- in the peer reviewed portion of the journal (so, like, not letters or commentary I guess) and that scientists shouldn't talk to journalists and that journalists should read the peer reviewed articles themselves? Yeah, right, that's how it works.
I see what he's saying, but the majority of the scientists are pretty respectful and careful on their blogs when talking about science. It would have been more appropriate for him to have engaged the blogger in conversation so then both could have learned and shared.
Update: there is a lot of interesting discussion on this in the geoblogosphere (like on geosciences blogs), I recommend these for further reading.
via: Peer-to-Peer
Both from the April 2008 (v1 n4) issue of Nature Geosciences.
To blog or not to blog? - p208
Gavin Schmidt
doi:10.1038/ngeo170
Some interesting points about the nuances of communicating science to the public and also why a member of the public won't really be able to access the science even if they can get physical access to an article. Talks about informal scholarly communication as "second-stage peer review." He oversells the ability of the average scientist to successfully translate all of the bumps and wiggles of the graph - but essentially, I think he's right on with using the stories told over time in a blog to transmit tacit knowledge.
Minority report - p209
Myles Allen
doi:10.1038/ngeo174
Starts with thinking that it's good to rebut rubbish reports, but then an article of his was rebutted on RealClimate and "By the time I heard about it...." My immediate response to that is surprise that he doesn't read that blog given the field he's in? I have a bunch of ego feeds in my name, surely I'd see articles written about me... So the author didn't rebut the misinterpretation, and this got trotted out later by journalists, etc. He seems to be suggesting that commentary and discussion on peer reviewed papers should be in and only in peer reviewed journals -- in the peer reviewed portion of the journal (so, like, not letters or commentary I guess) and that scientists shouldn't talk to journalists and that journalists should read the peer reviewed articles themselves? Yeah, right, that's how it works.
I see what he's saying, but the majority of the scientists are pretty respectful and careful on their blogs when talking about science. It would have been more appropriate for him to have engaged the blogger in conversation so then both could have learned and shared.
Update: there is a lot of interesting discussion on this in the geoblogosphere (like on geosciences blogs), I recommend these for further reading.
Labels: science blogging
¶ 10:42 PM| (0) comments |cites (technorati) |
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Science Blogging, Public Communication of Science, and Public Intellectuals
I've spent all day (literally) working on a literature review for an upcoming (hopefully) study of how and why scientists use blogs. I'm going back through previous research on blogs in general, personal web pages of scientists, informal scholarly communication, personal information management, and public communication of science. All fascinating stuff -- that's the problem, really, that I keep getting lost and wandering off :) Now I'm just fried so I have to go work more on IR stuff (ha!).
Anyway, to the point(s). First, Lamb and Davidson (2005) found that senior researchers don't pay attention or really worry much about web presence -- they want to be known by their publication record and sort of think their time could be better spent. They found that junior researchers searched for people's web pages and also maintained up to date and detailed personal web pages. This is interesting given Barjak's (2006) findings that senior researchers and those who were more productive used the web more. I think there are some details there to tease out.
My other point is how much I enjoyed reading Cohen (2006) and Gregg (2006).
Cohen (2006) discusses the criticism of blogs as narcissistic and/or as (poor/new/revolutionary) journalism. He argues that blogs are an emerging thing which is "subjected to the gravity of the familiar" - IOW that they really are different and the views of 'public' is different but they are judged as if they are trying to be something else. They straddle this public-private thing... well if you're interested, you had better read the paper, because my toasted brain can't do it justice right now. (of course, your library has to have a subscription to the journal for you to read it)
Gregg (2006) brings up how scholars blogging make the work life of the scholar banal and ordinary (her words). This struck me as Kyvik (2005) was saying that one of the reasons for public communication of science is to make visible the invisible work of the scientist - non-scientists don't know what scientists do so may be less pro-science and less likely to fund science. Anyway, she also talked about institutional constraints and views of "professionalism" getting in the way of public communication of scholarship and public intellectualism (I went on a whole long side trip there looking for more information on the exact definition of public intellectual and getting involved in French history....) I guess in her field, cultural studies, there's been a lot of criticism about not being "out there" enough. Also, lots of really good stuff here, which I am, at this point, incapable of summarizing.
Barjak, F. (2006). The role of the internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1350-1367.
Cohen, K. R. (2006). A welcome for blogs. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 20(2), 161-173.
Gregg, M. (2006). Feeling ordinary: Blogging as conversational scholarship. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 20(2), 147-160.
Kyvik, S. (2005). Popular science publishing and contributions to public discourse among university faculty. Science Communication, 26, 288-311.
Lamb, R., & Davidson, E. (2005). Information and communication technology challenges to scientific professional identity. Information Society, 21(1), 1-24.
Anyway, to the point(s). First, Lamb and Davidson (2005) found that senior researchers don't pay attention or really worry much about web presence -- they want to be known by their publication record and sort of think their time could be better spent. They found that junior researchers searched for people's web pages and also maintained up to date and detailed personal web pages. This is interesting given Barjak's (2006) findings that senior researchers and those who were more productive used the web more. I think there are some details there to tease out.
My other point is how much I enjoyed reading Cohen (2006) and Gregg (2006).
Cohen (2006) discusses the criticism of blogs as narcissistic and/or as (poor/new/revolutionary) journalism. He argues that blogs are an emerging thing which is "subjected to the gravity of the familiar" - IOW that they really are different and the views of 'public' is different but they are judged as if they are trying to be something else. They straddle this public-private thing... well if you're interested, you had better read the paper, because my toasted brain can't do it justice right now. (of course, your library has to have a subscription to the journal for you to read it)
Gregg (2006) brings up how scholars blogging make the work life of the scholar banal and ordinary (her words). This struck me as Kyvik (2005) was saying that one of the reasons for public communication of science is to make visible the invisible work of the scientist - non-scientists don't know what scientists do so may be less pro-science and less likely to fund science. Anyway, she also talked about institutional constraints and views of "professionalism" getting in the way of public communication of scholarship and public intellectualism (I went on a whole long side trip there looking for more information on the exact definition of public intellectual and getting involved in French history....) I guess in her field, cultural studies, there's been a lot of criticism about not being "out there" enough. Also, lots of really good stuff here, which I am, at this point, incapable of summarizing.
Barjak, F. (2006). The role of the internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1350-1367.
Cohen, K. R. (2006). A welcome for blogs. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 20(2), 161-173.
Gregg, M. (2006). Feeling ordinary: Blogging as conversational scholarship. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 20(2), 147-160.
Kyvik, S. (2005). Popular science publishing and contributions to public discourse among university faculty. Science Communication, 26, 288-311.
Lamb, R., & Davidson, E. (2005). Information and communication technology challenges to scientific professional identity. Information Society, 21(1), 1-24.
Labels: science blogging, science communication
¶ 5:25 PM| (0) comments |cites (technorati) |
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
The North Carolina Science Blogging Conference, Saturday, January 20, 2007.
Almost too late to register for this now, but I just saw it.
I'll probably try to go. I need to run home and get my MAC number before I register.... Hope I'm not too late!
I'll probably try to go. I need to run home and get my MAC number before I register.... Hope I'm not too late!
Labels: science blogging, sciencebloggingconference
¶ 5:05 PM| (0) comments |cites (technorati) |
Friday, December 29, 2006
January 2007 issue of Physics World
Some good stuff here:
January 2007
A revolution in bits
Why the Web is changing physics publishing
The open-access debate
The pros and cons of free-to-read papers
Talking physics in the social Web
Blogs, wikis and social tagging
Peer review steps out of the shadows
How the Web can open up peer review
The rise and rise of citation analysis
Using the Web to quantify scientific output
Editorial
Brave new Web
Welcome to the publishing revolution
Forum
Blogging for physics
Why I like to blog (by Sean Carroll)
Reviews
All shook up
The strange life of Charles Richter
Secret history
Lifting the veil on female physicists
Blog life: Uncertain Principles
Our new column on blogs
January 2007
A revolution in bits
Why the Web is changing physics publishing
The open-access debate
The pros and cons of free-to-read papers
Talking physics in the social Web
Blogs, wikis and social tagging
Peer review steps out of the shadows
How the Web can open up peer review
The rise and rise of citation analysis
Using the Web to quantify scientific output
Editorial
Brave new Web
Welcome to the publishing revolution
Forum
Blogging for physics
Why I like to blog (by Sean Carroll)
Reviews
All shook up
The strange life of Charles Richter
Secret history
Lifting the veil on female physicists
Blog life: Uncertain Principles
Our new column on blogs
Labels: citation analysis, physics, science blogging
¶ 4:19 PM| (0) comments |cites (technorati) |
