Thanks for making my point, Nature

[This post was originally published at webeasties.wordpress.com]

Back in July I wrote about an editorial published in Nature about the future of science communication and what place blogs had in that future. Though I agreed with them that blogs are a great resource, I also thought that they were being a bit disingenuous about their desire to relate with the public considering that almost all of their material is locked behind a paywall, so the public doesn't have access. I even wrote a comment to that effect on their website:

It's all well and good to talk about public accessibility of science, but how do you expect the public to get engaged when almost all primary literature is locked behind a pay-wall? I have access through my university, but when I want to blog about new research for friends and family, I'm stuck linking to abstracts and then summarizing everything in the paper.

I just received an e-mail today that my comment was flagged as spam and removed. I'm not sure how they arrived at that conclusion, but I've written to their customer support to see if they'll rectify the situation. If not, they're just making my point for me. Way to encourage public discourse, Nature.

More like this

Over at Pharyngula, PZ mentions a media criticism paper in the journal Public Understanding of Science. The paper shows that media outlets frequently make scientific claims that are dubious at best. I suppose this isn't very surprising, but PZ makes another great point: It isn't open access, though…
[This post was originally published at webeasties.wordpress.com] Considering the forum, you can probably guess my answer, but it seems the editors at Nature agree... sort of: Institutions need to recognize and to encourage such outreach explicitly -- not just as a matter of routine, but…
In last week's editorial in Science, Bruce Alberts starts with a point that I think few here would disagree with: decisions in government need to be data-driven, and based on the best science available. This point has been made before, and it's certainly crucial, but the more crucial point is why…
[This post was originally published at webeasties.wordpress.com] Most papers I read these days are long. Nature and Science papers tend to have 3-4 figures (Cell and Immunity papers can be twice that), tons of supplementary data and are at least a couple pages of dense, science-speak prose. I think…