ResearchBlogging.org now available

Comments

Put me in the negative camp, albeit slightly. I just find some of the reasoning a little elitist. I prefer using the good old web and its underlying architecture to filter out good from bad, plus we all make up our own minds anyway.
You make a good point. To me, the extra level of filtering is useful, even if only to let me know which are about peer-reviewed articles. I think I have come to the conclusion that I won't use it to tell me if a post is *good* (it definitely can't do that!), just that it is definitely about an article I might be interested in. I think it could be a useful additional filter level. I also know that in the past, I've written about an article and included a link to the article itself, but never bothered with DOI's etc, and I'm certainly being more strict with myself now!

Thanks for commenting :)
In my opinion DOIs should be available as a nice RESTful URI (OpenRef does that), so that just linking to the DOI should resolve itself appropriately. I believe that Geoff Blider and the CrossRef folks are working on some plugins to do just that.

I am probably more critical of BPR3 than I should be. Just tired of the whole peer-review, publish or perish system in general
Again, I agree with the statements in your first paragraph, but don't think that they apply directly to what researchblogging.org is trying to do. They're providing an aggregating service and also a method of classification for posts that's easy to follow. The question of the usefulness or quality of the "publish or perish" is a good one, but one that is also not relevant to whether or not you use the tools provided by researchblogging. I'm sure that if the current peer-review process were changed to a more "fair" method, then researchblogging would change to meet it.
Thanks! :)
Dave Munger seemed to suggest in a comment on my blog that they would like to extend beyond peer-reviewed pubs, which would be nice and would remove a big objection that I have at this time. They are supporting COinS as well, which is also a good thing.

You should have been at the Scienceblogging conference. Scientific publishing and scientific communication came up again and again and again
I'm slightly embarrassed to say that I hadn't realized there was a scienceblogging conference - I've looked at the website now, and yes, it looks like it was interesting, though I can't get a good luck as the website isn't playing nice with firefox - all those frames! Ironic, isn't it?
I hadn't heard of COinS before, but I've had a quick look at the webpage now (http://ocoins.info/, correct?) and it certainly looks interesting. Thanks!

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in