Blog posts are better than scientific papers because blog posts are not competitive

First of all, let me introduce myself. I am Kamil, some people call me Slim (means slug). In September 2015 I joined lab of Marc Robinson-Rechavi at University of Lausanne as PhD student. From Marc, I learned about the importance of social media in scientific communication, so I joined twitter (@KamilSJaron) and today I read the tweet

I have spent about twenty minutes by formulating my argument in 160 characters without any success, but then I got this wonderful idea – to make a blog answer!

Researchers need to compete

Public money driven research needs some mechanisms to distribute money to researchers. Those mechanisms would require some metric that will be used to evaluate the performance of researchers. If we stop with peer review and start communicate science through blogs only, what will be the new metric that will be used by agencies? The number of blogposts? The number of clicks? I can not imagine how many blogposts would be produced by eight million researchers wordwide (http://data.uis.unesco.org/?queryid=64#). I guess, we will always hate the metric used for our evaluation and I do not see any reason to think that blogs would produce more fair statistics than scientific papers.

I find strange the historical argument used on twitter (there was a time without peer review and it worked). So many things were different at the time (for me mainly the number of scientists) to think that we can just do what they did.

Do not take me wrong, blogs are awesome and current form of peer review sucks! I just think that the reason why blogs are so great is because they are not a strong scientific currency and the vast majority of bloggers are enthusiastic. I can imagine that if paper publishing would not matter, the reviewers would be much nicer and constructive than now.

In the end, I would like to thank to @ctitusbrown and @marc_rr, my blog would not exist without them!

Advertisements