I thought this was a pretty good paper. The premise is straightfoward: Ulises Ali Mejias argues that the posts in his blog, over the long run, constitute a literature review, as defined by Boote et al. in Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation. I think he succeeds uiin showing that blogging satisfies the criteria, but I have to ask, is the resulting literature review a good literature review? My response? No. Consider: he includes Barabâasi but not Watt. Turkle but neither Rushkoff nor Rheingold. Habermas but not Foucault. Maybe the list would be rounded out over time, but he doesn't show that. Blogging rarely (if ever) submits to an intention, to a specific program of study; it reflects the needs and interests of the author.