Lately, as much as I hate to admit this, I have been struggling to find the usefulness in blogging and establishing an online identity for a basic research scientist. The article "Can Blogging Derail Your Career" got me thinking that it could quite possibly derail a research scientist's career. I know that is a pretty bold statement...but hear me out! In this field, your livelihood depends on keeping your ideas secret. There have been numerous occasions where scientists have been "scooped" out of their publications, experiments, novel findings, and grant money due to sharing information with the wrong audience prematurely. In contrast, sometimes scooping is accidental meaning two researchers just happen to work on the same project simultaneously, and the one to publish it first is the "winner" in a sense while the other group is said to be "scooped." While this may be trival to those not in the research science field, this work can comprise years of an individual's life. Don't believe me...just take a look at this person's blog and at how angry she feels because she got scooped. If scientists are leery about sharing their exciting and yet-to-be published results in a scientific conference settting for fear of getting scooped, then why would a scientist blog about their findings? Therefore, self-preservation and furthering my career would drive me to not blog about my findings until after they were published because both types of scooping are prevalent. Maybe that's the only way to blog scientifically without getting scooped.
Additionally, I am struggling with the quality of scientific work if there was a switch from a peer-
review publication format to publishing data on a blog. Experts in the field determine whether or not a manuscript is deemed publication quality for a particular journal. These expert reviewers have done the leg-work and determined whether or not the finding warrants a publication in a higher or lower tiered journal. For example, I know based on impact factor that Immunity is an excellent journal in the Immunology field. But, as an expert in Immunology, it is my duty to not take that at face value. I still have to critique all articles in that journal and determine whether or not I deem a particular manuscript in that journal as publication worthy in such a high impact journal. Based on my blog name, you can guess I am a knowledgeable in Immunology and Microbiology. But, let's say for argument sake, that I wanted to critique an article in Oncology. I am not an expert in that field. But, having expert reviewers who have determined a manuscript deserves publication in Lancet Oncology (impact factor 22) says to me that these articles present quality scientific work, experiments are designed to address the question, and the findings have the potential to change the field. If all manuscripts were published in a blog format, then how do you distinguish paradigm changing work from work that might be a carbon-copy of a study performed a few years earlier? It would require the person reading the blog on the particular subject to become the expert through researching all aspects of the field. In a sense, that fosters critical thinking and hones research skills which I think we need more of in education, but slows the process of further scientific research because you would have to sift through mounds of blogs in order to filter the data and come to one overall conclusion. I mean isn't scientific research slow enough?
Overall, these are some of the questions and ideas I have been struggling with as of late. And, needless to say, the article we read definitely brought these fears to the forefront. But, I am hoping this class helps me identify the usefulness of scientific blogging, and, more importantly, helps teach me how to become a responsible scientific blogger.
