On the one hand I support their effort to highlight serious blogging about real research, as opposed to press clippings and press releases. But on the other hand, I disagree that the only blogging worth the name is of 'peer reviewed research' - that is, of work published in a (commercial) journal. It's not about where it was published (though Seed, the major sponsor, might disagree) but whether it adopts an appropriate scientific stance - a basis in experience, open process, testable conclusions. Peer review is neither necessary nor sufficient, and anything called "research blogging" would, if it were honest, admit that.
Today: 0 Total: 1101 [Direct link] [Share]
