I just going to make a quick couple of points that that I've not seen expressed elsewhere:
- I blog and don't published because I am employed in industry. I can't publish, not because my research isn't adequate, but because my employer won't let me.
- My publications are limited to patents.
- But my biggest beef is this: In the interview, Prof. O' Conner is very respectful of pre-publication reviews. Well, I am a very active reviewer for the Royal Society of Chemistry. So how come Prof. O'Conner respects my pre-publication reviews, but my post-publication reviews are without any merit? It's the same brain and fingers writing at the same keyboard in both cases. Why the respect in one case and the disrespect in the other?
Or did the idea that bloggers can also be reviewers never occur to her?
From the very little I've read of this case, it looks like the prof in question (O'Connor) has been the subject of consistent attacks from bloggers over the years.
Yes, that is what I gather as well, and I get the feeling that those bloggers have a creationist or near-creationist viewpoint as well.
I take her comments as being made from a point of ignorance, not knowing that there are plenty of bloggers that are mostly writing for professionals and advanced students. I'm just not sure that the Twitter firestorm will have done anything other than reinforce her existing notions.
Post a Comment