Tag Archives: Jeff Ollerton

Bringing ecology blogging into the scientific fold: measuring reach and impact of science community blogs

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.

Reviewer: 1

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.

Reviewer: 2

 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.   

 

Post script

If you want to know what my fellow authors thought about our collaboration you can find Manu’s story here, Steve’s here, Amy and Terry’s here and Meghan’s here.

Advertisements

10 Comments

Filed under Science writing

A Year of Not Forgetting the Roundabouts

Exactly a year ago (January 1st 2013), and with some trepidation, I launched my blog, Don’t Forget the Roundabouts.  I recently wrote about why I joined Twitter, https://simonleather.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/why-i-joined-the-twitterati-blogs-tweets-talks-making-entomology-visible/ and concluded that it had been a worthwhile and educational experience.  So how about the blog?  To me this was even scarier than going on to Twitter.  It took me some time to come up with a title, and I finally opted for the one you see above this post.  This celebrates my interest in urban ecology, my fascination with the architecture, decoration and biodiversity of roundabouts in general

Cantaur compressed

and my belief that we should concentrate the majority of our conservation efforts on small and local issues in our own back-yards https://simonleather.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/think-small-and-local-focus-on-large-charismatic-mega-fauna-threatens-conservation-efforts/.  I am not saying that international conservation is a bad thing; I just think that there is a lot of scientific imperialism/colonialism (e.g.  http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7519/705.full, andhttp://www.conservationandsociety.org/article.asp?issn=0972-4923;year=2007;volume=5;issue=2;spage=147;epage=183;aulast=Adams ) out there as well as a huge amount of taxonomic bias, driven by ex-situ conservationists with agendas driven by charismatic mega-fauna.  I think that local conservationists and indigenous populations should be primarily responsible for their own conservation efforts, but also of course, not forgetting their global responsibilities.

Writing a fully fledged blog, as opposed to tweeting, is to me a big deal.  Twitter is pretty ephemeral but a personal blog is out there and relatively easy to find.  I have therefore felt that when I write about science, which is mainly what appears here, that I need to research the literature thoroughly and get my facts right. After all, what I write about aphids may be found by a researcher or student who because I have published extensively on aphids, may take it as gospel without checking sources, despite my warnings https://simonleather.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/how-stephen-jay-gould-wrote-macbeth-not-giving-credit-where-its-due-lazy-referencing-and-ignoring-precedence/.  I find that preparing a scientific post takes as much background research as writing a full-blown paper for publication, in fact sometimes it takes longer because I find myself delving into some really obscure literature from the distant past https://simonleather.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/desperately-seeking-sources-the-quest-for-the-original-citation/. That said, it has all been great fun and I have learnt a lot and found a lot of really interesting blogs out there; something I never really looked at until I started blogging myself.

So what have I learnt from blogging?  Well, not everyone finds aphids as interesting as I do, but I will continue to plug away at trying to convince you all that aphids really are the greatest insect group in the world 😉  That said, my most popular post was about aphids, https://simonleather.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/desperately-seeking-sources-the-quest-for-the-original-citation/ found mainly by people using the search term, ‘do aphids bite people’ and looking at the traffic data it shows a fairly good correlation with the times that aphids are likely to be most abundant, although I am not convinced that they are all out there biting people.

Not all aphids are vegans

Otherwise my most popular posts are those that have dealt with more general issues, such as the PhD viva experience https://simonleather.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/are-phd-examiners-really-ogres/ which shows a steady number of hits at about an average of one a day once you discount the initial launch peak.

 Are PhD Examiners really orgres

I have published 39 posts, reached people in 112 countries, with the top ten being dominated by the English-speaking countries of the world, and

Country views

had over 14,000 views with an average of 39 per day and sixty people subscribe to my blog as official followers.

Annual summary again

My most viewed day was 451, won by my recent blog on joining the Twitterati.  My ambition is to have a post that is actually read by all my followers on Twitter!  My two most frequent commenters and bestowers of likes are Emily Heath http://adventuresinbeeland.com/ and Jeff Ollerton http://jeffollerton.wordpress.com/.   My most frequent referrer was Chris Buddle http://arthropodecology.com/

My thanks and best wishes to them all, and of course, to all my other readers and followers.  I would really like feedback from all of you to help me improve my efforts during 2014.

A Prosperous and Happy New Year to you all.

4 Comments

Filed under The Bloggy Blog, Uncategorized