Comments on: Science and Web 2.0: Talking About Science vs. Doing Science

By: How the Internet Changed Medical Journals « The Scholarly Kitchen

How the Internet Changed Medical Journals « The Scholarly Kitchen — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:31:53 +0000

[...] answer that many of us keep returning to, in order to explain why most scientists eschew Web 2.o, social networks, science blogging, open review, and post-publication review, is that authors gain [...]

By: Researchers And Social Media: Uptake Increases When Obvious Benefits Result « The Scholarly Kitchen

Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:31:33 +0000

[...] the things scientists already needed to accomplish. For those paying attention, that’s long been an important message – create tools to fit the needs of your community rather than expecting the community to [...]

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:30:40 +0000

GoogleWave was really harmed by the way it was announced and promoted, as a replacement for e-mail, instead of as a useful collaborative tool. That, and Google’s apparent short attention span for anything that doesn’t immediately stick doomed it.

By: Sebastian Tallents

Sebastian Tallents — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:22:39 +0000

I thought googlewave was a potentially fantastic opportunity.

Normally, when collaborating with diverse fellow researchers around the world, keeping drafts, data, and analyses consistent as it bounces back and forth is problematic.

Something like googlewave would have been very useful. Saddly, the roll out meant I never got to test bed it.

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:01:39 +0000

SEO (search engine optimization) is definitely a big reason to write a science blog. I’ve long advised journal editors and publishers that it’s a good way to help drive traffic. But that’s a different thing from the idea that there’s a serious discourse from the mainstream of science going on through blogging.

By: David Stern

David Stern — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:26:03 +0000

I write a blog mainly to help people find out about my work when they do a Google search on a topic. The more posts you have the more Google hits you’ll get and people reading your work and eventually citing it. At least that is my expectation. I don’t think a lot of the critics of science blogging understand that. yes, top people in field might not be using Google to find out what is going on but students and people on the margins of what you are doing will.

By: Jeary

Jeary — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 06:05:42 +0000

Talking about science leads us to do science in much better way.

By: The RIN Report on Researchers and Web 2.0: If You Build It . . . Well, You Know the Rest « The Scholarly Kitchen

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:25:33 +0000

[...] well in-line with everything we’ve seen for the last few years (see previous columns here, here, here, and here). Predictions that new online technologies will revolutionize the way scientists [...]

By: Creating an Incentive: Can Social Media Offer Enough Carrots to Entice Scientists? « The Scholarly Kitchen

Wed, 12 May 2010 09:12:52 +0000

[...] Doing science is more important than talking about science. [...]

By: Science and Web 2.0: Talking About Science vs. Doing Science « The … « Social Computing Technology

Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:12:07 +0000

[...] original post here: Science and Web 2.0: Talking About Science vs. Doing Science « The … concept, include-the, often, [...]