I was alerted by the Neurocritic to a new paper out in PLoS ONE on research blogs and discussion of scientific information. It's an analysis of researchblogging.org bloggers, who there are, what they blog about, and who is significant. It's an interesting 'state of the blogsphere' type read (though I don't feel the significance of the research is really adequately discussed, what does this mean for both the blogging field and research science? How does it compare to other blogging areas?), and Neurocritic has a good breakdown (and mentioned me for my meta blogging! I am both flattered...I think...and amused, since I was hoping I didn't do that too often. As I am doing it now. Right). The only quibble I have with it is that they use Technorati as a measure of the 'best' science blogs. Guys, that is so 2007. As a matter of fact, many of the research blogs (especially those which have moved, say, since the breakup of ScienceBlogs, etc), are not even indexed on Technorati. That's because Technorati is something that you have to index yourself on, it's not a straight aggregator of hits. As such I think it's probably not the best metric of the 'best' bloggers (looking through the list, a good 20 in the top 200 I was able to immediately identify as defunct). I would think that a careful google search would have been a better metric (though much more time consuming).
But there was something interesting about this paper, and it was this:
The average RB blogger in our sample is male, either a graduate student or has been awarded a PhD and blogs under his own name.
So...I'm not average. Or I'm only 50% of average. The AVERAGE OF AVERAGE!!! YES!!!!
It does make me sad that there are fewer women out there blogging about scientific research. I know many women in the science blogsphere. There are a lot more female pseuds, a lot more women blogging about work/life balance, and so I think it's much more of a question of WHAT women in science are blogging about as opposed to whether they are blogging. Perhaps that would have been interesting to address in the discussion (oh my. Did I just post-peer-review a paper that is in effect a REVIEW of bloggers writing post-peer-review!??! The meta will open a black hole in the universe any minute).
As to WHY women in science blog less about science research? I have some guesses. First off, while the paper states that most real name bloggers see blogging as "if not as a career enhancer, then at least as career-neutral", this seems like a stretching assumption to me. I personally find that attitudes toward blogging as a scientist vary greatly according to field, with fields like exercise physiology being encouraging, psychology being more neutral, and biomedical fields being, in some cases actively hostile (though becoming less so, yay!). Being that women often feel themselves under extra pressure and at a disadvantage in their science training, why take on something that is, at best, neutral?
Secondly, there's this (courtesy of Astrokatie):

(Of course it's from XKCD)
I have seen some truly amazing vitriol leveled at female bloggers, and female science bloggers are no exception. I see far, far less aimed at men. Why would a woman willingly take on something career-neutral at best and which comes with free extra judgements of her looks and character? There are probably other reasons in addition to these two.
...all of this is making me wonder why I'm here. The answer being that I love SCIENCE, and I think you should too!
But the research raises some questions. What makes a science blogger influential and what makes them "real"? There are many people blogging about science who don't use ResearchBlogging as their stamp. I have no doubt that as the blogsphere continues to grow, that will only become more so. But right now it's an interesting picture, and raises some interesting thoughts. At least, enough for me to get super meta for a while.
*Note: technorati makes you put a little squibble of numbers in your blog so their trawler can find it and confirm you. That's what was here last night. I figured I might as well.



that is damn cryptic. is it a riddle??
Technorati. Pay no mind. Is gone now!
OINVU4URAQT
I approve this post.
I say this only that I can say I have done post peer review of a blog post about post peer review inspired by a post peer review blog post of a peer reviewed paper about post peer review by blogs of peer reviewed papers.
I approve this comment. So I have post reviewed a comment on a post about a post peer review that...dang I got lost in the meta.
"There are many people blogging about science who don't use ResearchBlogging as their stamp."
Count me among them. I do blog original research--especially autism- and ADHD-related research--pretty frequently, but my blogging often aggregates research for the purposes of argument, rather than focusing on a single paper at a time.
I am going to blog my thoughts on your post. And then blog my thoughts on any comments the original post gets.
I was amused by the Technorati rankings as well, and said in a comment that they've been meaningless for a while (so 2007 as you said). So I decided to check my blog ranking for the first time in years, and it's shot up 498 places to #57, ahead of such luminaries as Gene Expression, denialism blog, and Panda's Thumb:
http://technorati.com/blogs/directory/science
I was most excited to surpass OUR NEW ORLEANS SAINTS (#96 ranking science blog), which you really have to see to believe:
http://technorati.com/blogs/blackandgoldpatrol.blogspot.com
But The Neurocritic will probably be back at #555 by tomorrow...
Yeah, I'm surprised they used that as the ranking system at all, I don't think I've seen Technorati listed as the big ranker for a while. I just put my blog on there to see what will happen. Maybe, if I'm lucky, I'll make it up above OUR NEW ORLEANS SAINTS.
I have had a terrible time as a wordpress.com blogger getting my posts to aggregate at researchblogging.org. So...it may be that there is a gap in the data they used?
You're not alone with that... I've had to manually import every post for quite a while, and I've heard similar problems from people using blogger as well. It only adds 30 seconds or so, but it was much nicer when the aggregating was automatic.
Luckily, ScienceSeeker recognizes the RB.org code. So, even if RB isn't picking it up, SS is.
If technorati is out of date, what ranking systems are current/interesting/useful?
What makes a science blogger influential and what makes them "real"? There are many people blogging about science who don't use ResearchBlogging as their stamp.
I don't think I've ever even heard of "ResearchBlogging".
I think next paper is going to Scientometrics (where no one but bibliometricians will see it).
Never mind, I'm just a bit upset.
[...] a research paper about science blogs using the ResearchBlogging.org aggregator. Responses by Scicurious, Neurocritic, Jonathan Eisen, Caroline Tucker, Misha Angrist and Invader [...]
[...] interesting talk about blogging after this paper in PLoS ONE was published. For more, check out here and [...]
[...] was originally alerted to this paper by Sci Curious, who’s written her own take on the research. I must say, the points she raises are all the first things that should probably spring to [...]