Re:Reasons blog posts can be of higher scientific quality th...
by lucb1e on Monday April 17, 2017 @10:10AM
(#14130967)
> (i) not written in clickbait format
Really? I find them to be incredibly clickbaity whereas blog posts are much more matter-of-fact. Blogs are almost never a commercial entity/enterprise and while no writer would shun search engine traffic, they usually write for peers, not for publicity like journalists or scientists, both whose funding depends on this.
Re:Reasons blog posts can be of higher scientific quality th...
by notahacker on Monday April 17, 2017 @03:14PM
(#14133619)
I have yet to see the stereotypical "5 reasons why [bold claim involving zero research]" format the linked blog post uses uses in any academic journal.
Scientific writing in closed-access journals is the definition of writing for peers, and never includes AdSense, affiliate links or digital tip jars.
(i) not written in clickbait format
(ii) impact is measured in terms of other research which sees it as a relevant study to cite rather than numbers of pageviews (see also (i))
(iii) one of the things a peer review process can flag up is that bold and implausible claims like "On blogs, the norm is to provide access to the underlying data, code, and materials" probably need some form of qualification for what is meant by "blogs" and/or quantitative evidence to support that claim
Blogs can be well reasoned and evidence-based, comments can (even more infrequently) be enlightening and journal articles aren't immune to flaws, but the linked blog article is a prime example of why arguments expressed in blogs are seldom afforded the respect of arguments advanced in journals.