Publishing Original Research on Blogs

About evolgen

We talk about molecular population and evolutionary GENETICS and GENOMICS. You know, the caliper measurement of a gene's evolvability in moles.

Eschewing obfuscation ever since Morgan.

Search

Convergent Resouces

Blogs at the Convergence

Blogs by Journals

Other Blogs Blog Carnivals

Journals at the Convergence

« An Alignment Tree | Main | Publishing Original Research on Blogs - Part 2 »

Publishing Original Research on Blogs - Part 1

Category: Admin • Molecular Evolution • Science Education
Posted on: April 24, 2006 3:12 PM, by RPM

Bora has been pushing the idea of publishing original research (hypotheses, data, etc) on science blogs. As a responsible researcher, I would need to obtain permission from any collaborators (including my advisor) before published anything we have been working on together. But what about small side projects or minor findings that I don't expect to publish elsewhere? As it turns out, such a project has been laying dormant since I first started working on it at a class project a few years ago. I will reveal more information about this project in subsequent posts, but suffice it to say this research is far from earth shattering. My primary objective is not to present any important findings, but rather to give my readers insight into how easy it is to study evolution. After reading this series (I hope) someone will be able to download some sequences from the NCBI database and perform their own analyses. That being the case, all of the software I use will be freely available and easy to run on a PC (sorry Mac users, but that's my environment of choice).

Comments

Cool! Can't wait.

Posted by: coturnix | April 24, 2006 5:44 PM

Those of us with the software can replicate your findings and perhaps bring additional insights. Additional sets of eyes might see other goodies in your data, anyway data mining is fun. Dembski likes to use the internet for peer review and many people were happy to critique his work, volumes were written about his papers and research. Real science would be much more interesting to discuss and much more informative.

Posted by: Bruce Thompson | April 24, 2006 8:13 PM

I'm not aspiring to be Bill Dembski. This will be more about education than crappy science.

Posted by: RPM | April 24, 2006 8:41 PM

I think others have already beaten you that post, they are the et. al. at Uncommon Decent.

Posted by: Bruce Thompson | April 24, 2006 9:12 PM

BTW, there is a bloggable article by Nicholas Wade in today's NYTimes on chromatin, conserved sequences of non-coding DNA, and cell-fate.

Posted by: coturnix | April 25, 2006 1:02 AM