It has never been easier to post a comment to a scientific article. Just don’t expect an adequate reply from the author — or one at all — according to a new study.
Do the benefits of peer review outweigh the work involved? How does post-publication review stack up in comparison?
The Research Information Network’s new report on researchers and Web 2.0 offers a similar set of results to previous studies: uptake is relatively low, and the trustworthiness and quality of online resources are suspect. The report offers contrary evidence to common myths about “digital natives” and some useful advice for anyone looking to build social media.
The science blogosphere erupted in a furor this week, when Seed Media’s ScienceBlogs announced a new blog–Food Frontiers, a paid, sponsored blog about nutrition written by employees of PepsiCo. Multiple bloggers either suspended their blogs or quit ScienceBlogs altogether over their concerns that adding this blog undermined the credibility of the platform and their credibility as individual writers. Eventually, ScienceBlogs caved under the pressure and removed Pepsi’s blog. Did ScienceBlogs sell out to commercial interests, or was this just a continuation of what they’ve always done?
As Web 2.0 matures, new entrants are starting to find ways to extract value in innovative ways.
Twitter and Ning are both tremendously popular online tools-but popularity does not immediately translate into revenue. While the two companies are in decidedly different positions, each is trying to find a way to monetize all that traffic.
As science publishers, we hear a lot about the potential for new technologies. Often this comes in the form of a pitch from someone looking to sell you on either the technology they’re offering or on their expertise. In trying to see through the salesmanship, it’s important to have some general rules of thumb for approaching the integration of social media as tools for the research science community.
Let’s put aside all the controversy about open access publishing and come up with an OA plan that will work.
A recent study points out that science blogs are failing to provide much in the way of community outreach and education to the non-scientist public. Is this really a failure, or is it an unrealistic expectation?
One of the great benefits of the Internet is how it has extended our cultural memory. But has this also stolen our freedom of thought, our ability to create original works of art?
Technological platform wars have taken control of the book business, and publishers are now collateral damage in the fight.
So far, Web 2.0 tools for scientists have failed to gain much traction with researchers. Is this because they’re tools for talking about science rather than tools for doing science?
As 2009 ends, its trends will propel change into 2010 and beyond.
The companies behind social networks and media are running into conflicts with their users as they try to generate revenue from their services. Recent moves by Google, Facebook and AT&T are all sparking controversy as each encounters opposition to their business models from their customers.
Are user rating systems a good way of measuring the quality of an author’s research? More and more websites are abandoning 5-star rating systems as the results they give are deeply flawed. PLoS’ approach will probably suffer the same problems.