"Five reasons blog posts are of higher scientific quality than journal articles
In this blog, I will examine the hypothesis that blogs are, on average, of higher quality than journal articles.
Below, I present 5 arguments in favor of this hypothesis. 1. Blogs have Open Data, Code, and Materials...
2. Blogs have Open Peer Review...
3. Blogs have no Eminence Filter...
4. Blogs have Better Error Correction...
5. Blogs are Open Access (and might be read more)...
Conclusion:
...It is my opinion that blogs, on average, score better on some core scientific values, such as open data and code, transparency of the peer review process, egalitarianism, error correction, and open access.
It is clear blogs impact the way we think and how science works.
...Before this turns into a ‘we who write blogs recommend blogs’ post, I want to make clear that there is no intrinsic reason why blogs should have higher scientific quality than journal articles.
...Before this turns into a ‘we who write blogs recommend blogs’ post, I want to make clear that there is no intrinsic reason why blogs should have higher scientific quality than journal articles.
It’s just that the authors of most blogs I read put some core scientific values into practice to a greater extent than editorial boards at journals.
I am not recommending we stop publishing in journals, but I want to challenge the idea that journal publications are the gold standard of scientific output.
They fall short on some important dimensions of scientific quality, where they are outperformed by blog posts.
Pointing this out might inspire some journals to improve their current standards."
No comments:
Post a Comment