{ "version": "https://jsonfeed.org/version/1.1", "title": "chem-bla-ics", "description": "Chemblaics (pronounced chem-bla-ics) is the science that uses open science and computers to solve problems in chemistry, biochemistry and related fields.", "home_page_url": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/", "feed_url": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/2011/01/20/is-nature-really-clueless-about-blogs.json", "icon": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/assets/images/chem-bla-ics_logo.png", "language": "en", "authors": [ { "name": "Egon Willighagen", "url": "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-0286", "_orcid": "0000-0001-7542-0286" } ], "items": [ { "id": "https://doi.org/10.59350/3hbfp-6cr18", "url": "https://chem-bla-ics.linkedchemistry.info/2011/01/20/is-nature-really-clueless-about-blogs.html", "title": "Is Nature really clueless about Blogs, Twitter, etc? WTF ?!", "content_html": "

My apologies for this rant in the early morning, but WTF?? (what the fuzz??)\nI just got pointed to this Peer review: Trial by Twitter (doi:10.1038/469286a)\nby Mandavilli. Cool title, but before I even finished seventeen words of the\nintro… WTF?? Here it is:

\n\n
\n

Blogs and tweets are ripping papers apart within days of publication, leaving researchers unsure how to react.

\n
\n\n

What?? Is she mocking me? I know (I have been a reported of a university news\npaper) that intros must encourage the reader to read on… but What?? (And I\nread the intro a third time…)

\n\n

I’ll have to read the full thing later, if that makes more sense. But is she\nclueless? Are all people clueless about blogging, tweeting, etc?? Remember Royce\nMurray?\nHas she actually read the Trial by Twitter only so recently?

\n\n

Dear Mandavilli, in case you do run into this blog post, here’s my reply to\nyour intro: “The researchers have no problems how to react, they just did.”

\n\n

Now, after I cooled down a bit, and anticipating I got it all wrong, she might\nrefer to the researchers of the publication being ripped apart. In that case,\nI am tempted to believe that also in the English language one is expected to\nuse (well, forgive me I do not know the exact term) “leaving the researchers\n…”, where ‘the’ links ‘researchers’ to something said earlier. Now, I read,\nprobably wrong, researchers as any researcher interested in that publication.\nMandavilli could even have written “leaving the authors…”. But what do we\nhave Nature editors for, right?

\n\n

Anyways, I do believe this will be an interesting read once I managed to read\npast (for the fourth time) the intro of this article.

\n\n

</ripping>

\n\n

References

\n
\n
Mandavilli, A. (2011). Peer review: Trial by Twitter. Nature, 469(7330), 286–287. https://doi.org/10.1038/469286a CrossRef Scholia
\n
", "summary": "My apologies for this rant in the early morning, but WTF?? (what the fuzz??) I just got pointed to this Peer review: Trial by Twitter (doi:10.1038/469286a) by Mandavilli. Cool title, but before I even finished seventeen words of the intro… WTF?? Here it is:", "date_published": "2011-01-20T00:00:00+00:00", "date_modified": "2011-01-20T00:00:00+00:00", "tags": ["blogging","nature","publishing","science","twitter"], "_references": [ { "url": "https://doi.org/10.1038/469286a", "doi": "10.1038/469286a" } ], "authors": [ { "name": "Egon Willighagen", "url": "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-0286" } ] } ] }