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.
MicroBlogger:
ReplyDeleteI am really glad you brought this topic up as it's been on my mind too. As a basic research scientist whose career depends upon publications it makes me wonder 'what can we actually blog?' You make a great case for why blogging your preliminary results could be a bad idea (i.e. getting scooped). I think it's important to note though that the blogpost you mention while showing the anguish of getting scooped was not about getting scooped due to blogging data. It had more to do with some close-knit scientists hopefully unknowingly working on the same project. I don't know that there's a documented case of a basic research scientist blogging some data/thoughts and then getting scooped directly off of that (if anyone has an example please let us know!!!)... but I do agree with your overall point. It certainly could happen...and is a perfect example of 'be careful what you blog about'. Maybe blogging about papers you read and thought were very good in your field or about larger thoughts on your field instead of specific data would work.
You also make valid points about publishing data via blogs and thus circumventing the peer review process. Critical review of data from 'experts' in a field seems crucial to making sure sound science is published. Maybe blogs would be a good place to publish negative data...I think Jeff mentioned that during class too. My fellow graduate students and I used to dream about creating the 'Journal of Negative Results' to showcase to the scientific community what methodologies may not work and thus save scientists from wasting time performing experiments others have already tried but not published due to negative results. It could also be a platform to publish experiments you are having trouble with for methodological critiques as long as you don't give too many details away about your molecule of interest or meaning of the experiments so as to prevent scooping (similar to online protocol discussion boards).
Maybe this all screams at the idea that if advancing in your scientific career wasn't based solely/mostly on journal publications, scientists would feel they could discuss their ideas/experiments more openly. That's going to require a much larger shift in the mindset of the scientific community at large however...but we can all dream! :)
Great topic! Any scientist would have that fear of blogging about their results for reasons you discussed earlier. But I don't think that we would be that ignorant to do so. We all know and understand the importance of confidentiality when it comes to our work, and I think that is why it is sometimes difficult, well in my case, to present my work at a meeting, when I know I am no where near publication. I experienced a very similar situation to the one you highlighted in your blog to the point where I was afraid my competitors would steal my new ideas and drug model and run with it. It sucks when you are a grad student competing with a well known lab that can produce data in no time.
ReplyDeleteSo for me, blogging about my data is not an option. I think we work too hard as scientist to "give" away our results. Secondly the peer review process is a pain in the butt, but it is crucial for publication of great science. Yes there are experiments I worked hard on that didn't make it into my manuscripts, and I was pissed, but maybe these are what can be published as a supplement to the manuscript on a blog site. I can also see blogging about other things like "negative results" or techniques like Jeff mentioned in the class, but that is about it.
Just to clarify, I would never blog about my results either. Way too risky! But if we can't blog about our results or papers we feel are "bad" for fear of repercussions...I guess I have been struggling about what can we exactly blog about. I am not even sure I want techniques on a blog. Figuring out a specific technique can sometimes lead to you edging out the competition and resulting in the difference of whether or not you are scooped. But, I like the idea of publishing supplemental data to a blog. And of course, it would be nice to have a blog devoted to negative results.
ReplyDeleteNice post! I would suspect that there are already plenty of bloggers within your science community. Many science journals now have a blog feature such as this or this, and individuals are blogging as well, such as here or here. Lots of blogs are linked in Science 2.0. Do any of these examples conflict with your view or support it?
ReplyDeleteThese examples highlight important research articles, new discoveries, and prominent scientists. I think it is very important to highlight these topics in order to expose individuals with various backgrounds to the scientific research being conducted. But often, moving science forward takes intense criticism of the research being done. Oftentimes, these discussions are done in a controlled setting where repercussions are limited (ie. within a lab, institution, or even "lab families"). The fact that these blogs highlight important research rather than critique the research itself supports my view in that maybe scientists are afraid to blog critically about various studies because it could potentially derail their career.
DeleteI think an interesting point about what you just said is that people would be afraid to say critical things about a study if their name was attached to that critique/blog/review. That's interesting when you think about it in relation to peer review, since the identity of the reviewers of either a grant or manuscript are both confidential. This is to allow reviewers to give their 'true' thoughts without fear of consequence is one assumption. However, a lack of consequences due to anonymity of the person performing the critique allows them to 'bash' anything...think of any discussion board you have ever read on the internet (thought I'd hope reviewers don't behave the same way). One might argue that if you think your critique is honest/true/valid than you should not be afraid to put your name to it...there are a few reviewers whom actually sign their reviews. Maybe 'anonymous' review is also one of the problems of science??? Just a thought...
DeleteYou make a valid point. Maybe reviewers shouldn't hide behind anonymity, and that very well could be one of the problems in science. But, I feel that with the current funding situation there could be added pressure to remain anonymous. Maybe I am a cynic, but I think if people are willing to go as far as make up data in order to publish and get grants then what vindictive behaviors are they willing to do to a person's grant during a study section if they knew that person had given them a bad critique in the past?
DeleteJust to clarify that last comment was from me... Science Teacher...idk why it says anonymous.
ReplyDeleteHi guys!
ReplyDeleteLove the dialogue here and the blog was great :)!
What if you used a blog platform to discuss ideas for future research (research questions, methodologies, etc) rather than results? How about ethics of posing certain research questions or studying certain populations? Using it as a forum similar to what you would get out of at an international conference? Would that work? At least until we completely revolutionize the world of science and the way it works with all this "scooping" and silo-ing?
Also, a word about open access journals. Open access journals are free (to the reader) and openly available for any reader on the web. Most academic open access journals are still peer-reviewed and have very stunningly qualified review boards. In fact, the way most OAJs keep their cred within their communities revolve around using the top names in the field as their editorial boards. The only difference between many OAJs (open access journal) and a traditional journal published on line is how it is funded and who can access it. They are labors of love for the researchers who run them. For more information about OAJs, consider googling it--I recommend Peter Suber's blog to get an overview of the social movement and definitions of terms, or possibly Open Society Institute's website for business models. Even Elsevier and Emerald have pages on how to start open access journals if you search on their sites.
Hi Laura,
DeleteThanks for the ideas of what a scientist could blog about! I really like using it as a platform similar to a conference. And posing future research questions! These are great especially since I have been having a hard time finding the usefulness in scientific blogging.
I do not think blogging is meant to communicate ongoing unpublished research activities. And I believe that lack of the peer review process (although unpaid when it happens) is also a significant issue.
ReplyDeleteIf I would blog for the scientific community or for who ever have a sort of interest, I would be writing about emerging techniques or concepts in my field. I would hyperlink what ever I come across while I am surveying literature and think it is of interest to others in the field, particularly research published in high impact journals or that discussing a recent breakthrough achievement. I might even provide a sort of short review that is related to my as well as the audience research of interest. I could discuss some current trends and/or new policies that may affect my research or teaching activities.
Blogging is a disseminating tool…no one can keep him/herself updated easily and somehow I feel blogging or reading blogs could help in that context.
Sometime I read in the pipeline which exactly does what I just mentioned in addition to discussing the different issues of the pharmaceutical industry here in the US and around the world.