At the end of the year there is a tendency for some scientific bloggers to take advantage of the statistics provided by their host platform to produce a round-up of their year and to compare their figures with previous years. I too am one of the number crunchers and revel in the data available 🙂 One of the frustrating things, for me at any rate, is the lack of a benchmark, how are you doing compared with other bloggers? This year I decided to try and get some data and approached Jeff Ollerton to see if he would let me look at his 2016 data, which he kindly did and this allowed me to produce a comparative graph. Much wants more. As an entomologist an n of 2 is small beer. I needed more data to satisfy my craving. I also talk to our postgraduate students about the value of social media, including blogging, but rely mainly on personal anecdotes. What was needed was something concrete to support my assertions.
I subscribe to, and follow a number of blogs, but there are a few that I feel are somewhat similar in their aims and scope to mine. One is Jeff Ollerton’s Biodiversity Blog, the others are Dynamic Ecology, Ecology Bits, Ecology is Not a Dirty Word, Scientist Sees Squirrel and Small Pond Science. Jeff is also a follower of these blogs and when I suggested that it would be a good idea to try to write something about the value of blogging to academics and why our employees should support us in our endeavours he promptly suggested that we get in touch with those bloggers. I couldn’t see a downside to this so first approached Manu Saunders of Ecology is Not a Dirty Word and Steve Heard of Scientist Sees Squirrel as these were the two bloggers with whom I had interacted most. Steve then helped bring the others on board and that is how it all began (at least that is how I remember it).
The Blogging Consortium
Manu very kindly took charge of the data collation and I made a first stab at drafting the paper in mid-January. Steve did a very good job of rewriting it and Meg Duffy (Dynamic Ecology) Jeff Ollerton and Amy Parachnowitsch (Small Pond Science) got into the swing of things as well. By the end of January we were really motoring and bouncing ideas of each other and the rapidly growing draft. As with all non-mainstream activities, the day jobs got in the way and we had a couple of months where very little happened. I felt that things were slipping a little and in the spring had another go at the draft and this stimulated another flurry of action from what we were now calling the blogging consortium, with major contributions from Meg, Jeff and Steve, which put us all on our mettle and something that was beginning to look like a completed paper appearing. By May Manu had got us all working on a Google Doc document which greatly improved our efficiency. As we were now heading toward June, some further analysis was needed and Manu bravely volunteered to become the lead author and general butt kicker 🙂 It worked, and by the beginning of July we were ready to submit and had started discussing potential journals. As the paper was all about science communication we were very keen to get it in a high-profile Open Access journal, but one that didn’t charge an arm and a leg as our paper had no grant income associated with it. After a couple of enquiries Manu found a journal that fitted our requirements and was willing to have a look at it and on July 20th 2017 Manu submitted our paper to Royal Society Open Science. Six weeks later we were euphoric!
Oh frabjous day!
The comments of the reviewers were some of the best I have ever seen, and I submitted my first paper in 1979 🙂 I have never had the word limpid applied to my writing, it just shows what can be achieved by cooperation. I can’t resist sharing some of the comments from the reviewers
Associate Editor Comments to Author:
Both reviewers are very positive about this manuscript and indeed I agree with them. It is an important piece and a very inspirational read.
At one time, my favourite t-shirt slogan was “More people are reading this t–shirt than your blog” – those days are clearly gone as this paper shows, at least in ecology! ……..Their thoughts on citing blogs will, I suspect, launch many posts and comments on their respective blogs. I think this paper will be an important contribution to what is very much a developing field. I have no comments to add and, for the first time for me, I recommend acceptance without revision.
This is a fantastic and much needed piece that deserves to be published widely. ……….The authors clearly state this upfront: ‘academics wish to understand whether particular activities influence various audiences’. I command the authors for this rare instance of honesty and for aiming to publish this manuscript with the best academic journals in their discipline. The manuscript is limpid and very well written. The style is engaging and the results significant for the wider academic community. I fully support its publication.
These last nine months working on the paper were personally very rewarding and to me, a vindication that becoming a blogger was a good decision. It was also a huge buzz to work with such a dynamic group of bloggers. I think Steve sums it up for all of us in this Tweet
If you are not yet a science community blogger or don’t think that they have a place in mainstream science, please take the time to read our paper which you can find here. It won’t cost you anything but time 🙂 and if any reporters are reading this – here courtesy of Manu, is our press release.
Blogs are no longer simply online personal journals. We define an overlooked category of blogs that holds immense value for the scientific community: science community blogs are written by practising scientists for scientists. As academics and active bloggers, we use data from our own blogs to show how science community blogs are a valuable outreach and professional development tool. Blogs are also a citable primary source with potential to contribute to scientific knowledge. It’s time for blogs to be accepted as a standalone medium with huge benefits for individual scientists and the science community as a whole.