Coturnix has a really good overview of what's found on various science blogs, for anyone new to the genre or just looking for some new blogs. It's a pretty extensive discussion of different categories, with examples of each.
He also notes:
I'd like to see more bloggers post hypotheses and pilot (unpublished, negative or unpublishable) data. When is it going to happen?
As a new PI, I've considered this--and decided against it. I really haven't discussed my own current research much at all (or even prior, as-yet-unpublished research). For one, I still have collaborators, and I don't know that they'd be comfortable with me sharing. Two, yeah, the whole "scooped" thing. For now, I'm remaining mostly mum on what's up in the lab--at least until I have a bit more clout and additional publications under my belt. It's also more fun for me to write about what others have done--I already know the ups and downs of my own research areas, so I like to learn about and discuss other areas on here. This place is a hobby, and I worry that blogging too much in my own little niche crosses that line right into the "work" arena.
- Log in to post comments
I am amazed at the lack of resources devoted to publishing work that has failed to achieve its desired outcome. To explain, as a grad student I watched as one of my collegues spent two years of his life trying to carry out an experiment (a synthesis) that he was finally forced to abandon. Of course he couldn't publish the work.
A year later at a conference we were at a table with a professor who had a grad student who had spent over two years on the same work, five years earlier; subsequently at the same conference we met a yonger grad student who was six months into the same problem. In total five years of wasted work sat unpublished leaving the possibility (virtual certainty in the case of this sysnthesis) that more students would waste their time going down the same black holes.
Following the event we posited the idea for a new journal "The journal of spectacular failures" which would document failed work and present details to allow future researchers a resource to see what had tacks had failed and allow for less waste. This bolg would serve a similar purpose.
Of note, I've had many senior scientists assure me that my collegue's time was not wasted as he learned a tremendous amount in the time. These, however, are the same people who question CVs with inadequate publication volumes. In my colleague's case the hole that two years left in his CV resulted in his not being able to get a research job, now he teaches at a community college....a noble position, but not what he wanted to do when he started grad school!!!
Tara - From David Letterman's Top Ten List last night:
Top Ten Features Of President Bush's Bird Flu Pandemic Plan
10. Hang "Mission Accomplished" sign in every Kentucky Fried Chicken
9. Torture some Perdue employees until they talk
8. Scare birds away with giant radioactive kitties
7. Be on the lookout for any bird which looks "fluey"
6. Build wall along border so birds can't walk in from Mexico
5. Never leave the house, avoid human contact -- like Letterman
4. Tax cuts for the rich
3. C'mon, it's a Bush plan -- you actually think there's ten items?
2. If you see a bird, run like you're being chased by a tiger
1. Hang on until 2009 when it becomes Hillary's headache
In my colleague's case the hole that two years left in his CV resulted in his not being able to get a research job,
Ugh.
Ugh.
I weep for him, and I see myself.
You have to be perfect, unblemished, it seems, to get and keep a research or tenure-track job. It doesn't matter how good you are or what your potential is or what amazing contributions you make -- if you have a flaw, you're outta there.
It's so stressful, it keeps me up at night.
-Rob
There is power in negatie results, statistical power. Most meta-anlyses published are biased towards positive results, which is what usually gets published. There is at least a buzz among some people at NIH and NSF about the possibility of an on-line journal for negative results and alike.
you mean the journal of negative results?
http://www.jnrbm.com/
http://www.jnr-eeb.org/
Journal of Negative Results - Biomedicine
Journal of Negative Results - Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
I don't mind throwing hypotheses up, especially if they're theoretical in nature. Seems that you're only allowed to publish non-quantitative stuff if you've been around forever.
I'm lucky that in primatology, negative results aren't necessarily looked down upon. I've also seen a lot of stuff solo authored by people wihtout phds. I'm unlucky in that i'm non-PhD track (med school) so grants are more or less an impossibility.
"There is at least a buzz among some people at NIH and NSF about the possibility of an on-line journal for negative results and alike."
But they already exist! Google "journal of negative results", and you'll see that you have the choice of BioMedicine, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Speech and Audio Sciences etc.
I'm involved in JNR-EEB, and the main problem is persuading people to take it seriously enough to submit. So, please make the effort and support us!
Bob
Last night I tried to post a comment containing links to the JNR-EEB and JNR - Biomedicine, but the comment was held for approval and never appeared here.
Oops, sorry! Got sucked in amidst the "party poker" and "gay spank" spam...approved it now. (JP posted a similar link that also got caught).
So Tara, do you think that science blogging will ever have the same cachet (and protection of primacy) that presenting preliminary data at conferences has? Seems to me that it's a similar situation (largely unrefereed disclosure of incomplete results to the public prior to publication in peer-reviewed journals) and most labs present unpublished stuff at conferences.
"Ever?" Maybe. But not for awhile. Conferences are easier to track. Unlike blogs where times can be fudged and you don't really know who's reading, if you present data at a conference, people can be sure of the date and can even track down who was registered at the conference. Additionally, conference abstracts are generally peer-reviewed to boot, so a lot of differences remain between that type of risk in presenting data, and presenting it on a blog.
Bob, I know a few people who'd have some great negative results for yall, I'll let em know. Heck, i'll have some myself soon enough i'm sure.