Science, meet World
Archive for March, 2011
Top 5 Twitter Etiquette Tips
Mar 29th
While I claim to be no expert on Twitter etiquette, I would hope that over the past 2 years of tweeting I have picked up at least a few morsels of useful info.
Whenever I’ve tried to explain how Twitter works, I use the analogy of attending a large party with some potentially important guests in attendance.
Tip #1: How to make a Twitter entrance
As is the case with large parties, you know very few people there. Thus, when you first get there, you want to introduce yourself to as many people as possible.
But you wouldn’t simply enter through the front door holding a megaphone and announce to everyone present: “HELLO I AM JOHN AND I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO ALL OF YOU!”
That is, you don’t want to just blindly follow hundreds or even thousands of people without really getting to know any of them, and giving them an opportunity to learn something about you.
Most appropriate method would be to introduce yourself to a few people at a time, and to move around the room, slowly building contacts. More >
Scienceblogging Roundup - March 20-26
Mar 27th
While we post lengthy discussions here on Science of Blogging, there are many research updates, news stories, videos, etc. related to science communication that we come across on a daily basis that never grace the pages of the blog. Most of these mini-stories we share with our followers on Twitter, and we encourage those of you with active Twitter accounts to communicate with us there to get real-time updates of all the stuff we are discussing (Follow Peter and/or Follow Travis). For those of you who shy away from Twitter, enjoy below the best mini-stories that we came across during the prior week along with links to the original source so that you can follow the full story.
- The story behind Jonathan Eisen’s new PLoSONE paper <== A terrific example of how blogs can be used to provide supplemental information on a paper, as well as performing science communication and answering questions from both the media and from the general public, in a way that press releases just cannot. This blog post perfectly illustrates why scientists who are serious about science communication should be blogging (Phylogenomics)
- What is the most common negative social-networking experience? Spurned friend requests. (Thoughts of a Neo-Academic)
- What is your blogging style? (Skepticemia)
- Want to blog but can’t get up the courage to put yourself out there? Problogger has some great tips on ways to get over blogger fright (Problogger)
- Want to recruit top talent to your organization with your online job ad? Then make sure that your website combats industry stereotypes (Thoughts of a Neo-Academic)
- Open Lab 2010 is now up for sale! <== Open Lab is an annual anthology of the the best science blogging on the web. If you’re looking for ways to communicate science online more effectively, the posts in this book are a great starting point (A Blog Around The Clock)
- What is healthy? Learning through blogging. <== Penny Deck looks at how a class blog has helped her undergraduate students learn and improve their critical thinking skills (Feedback Solutions for Obesity)
- Finally, kudos to everyone who has started weekend roundups of their own! So far I have seen roundups from Nutritional Blogma, Feedback Solutions for Obesity, Voyages Around My Camera and Weight Maven, and have come across a few interesting links as a result - so they’re working! Let me know if I’ve missed any. If you’re considering starting a roundup of your own, check out my post from earlier this year explaining why roundup posts are an easy way to help your readers and grow your blog.
Those are the posts that caught our eye this week! I should mention that I found many of today’s articles through Researchblogging.org, which I have outlined previously here (and which I can’t recommend highly enough). Have a great weekend!
Travis
Scienceblogging Roundup - March 6-12
Mar 13th
While we post lengthy discussions here on Science of Blogging, there are many research updates, news stories, videos, etc. related to science communication that we come across on a daily basis that never grace the pages of the blog. Most of these mini-stories we share with our followers on Twitter, and we encourage those of you with active Twitter accounts to communicate with us there to get real-time updates of all the stuff we are discussing (Follow Peter and/or Follow Travis). For those of you who shy away from Twitter, enjoy below the best mini-stories that we came across during the prior week along with links to the original source so that you can follow the full story.
- Arsenic DNA author dumps peer review, gives a presentation at TED (Neuron Culture)
- Could Tumblr be the ideal way to spread scientific info online? (It’s Okay to Be Smart)
- What is worth more money - a share on Twitter or Facebook? (Social Media Today)
- The trouble with bibliographies (Gobbledygook)
- Culture clash: journalism’s ideology vs blog culture (Online Journalism Blog)
- Preventing obesity in 2011 <- not explicitly related to the science of blogging, but includes an example of a Slideshare presentation, which is a great way to turn lectures into online webinars (Obesity Panacea)
Those are the posts that caught our eye this week. Have a great weekend!
Travis
Blogging and the Law: Copyright
Mar 9th
How do you blog without getting sued? It seems like a very simple question. I know lots of science bloggers, and as far as I know none of them have been sued for blog-related material. And yet, the fear of legal action is a very real one for many science bloggers, myself included.
For most bloggers, there seem to be two areas where we are both fearful of breaking the law, and incredibly ignorant about what is/is not illegal. These areas are copyright and libel. Adrian Ebsary first brought up this issue in a comment on our ideas and suggestions page, and he has helped me to come up with a list of interview questions on both of these important topics. Today we will look at copyright, with interviews from John Wilbanks and Michael Geist.
As VP for Science, John Wilbanks runs the Science project at Creative Commons. He started and ran Incellico, an early-2000s biotech semantic database company. He has also been a semantic web fellow at the World Wide Web Consortium, a member of the project on mathematics and computation at MIT’s Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, a manager at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard, and a legislative aide in the US House of Representatives.
Michael Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He performed his Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, Master of Laws (LL.M.) degrees from Cambridge University in the UK and Columbia Law School in New York, and a Doctorate in Law (J.S.D.) from Columbia Law School.
Before the interview, just one more thing to get out of the way - a brief disclaimer from John Wilbanks:
“First, I need to state that Creative Commons is not a law firm, that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Please make sure that this is the first thing posted out of this interview and retained on all copies of this interview“
As always, people are more than welcome to share the content in this blog post as they please. But if you choose to do so, please ensure that the above disclaimer is included (for the record, Adrian and I aren’t lawyers either). I should also point out that Michael and John answered these questions separately, via email, which is why their answers sometimes overlap (they weren’t simply ignoring each others’ response).
Now the interview!
——-
SoB: In general, what line in the sand distinguishes far use from copyright infringement? In other words, when discussing someone else’s work (journal article, blog post, photo, etc) what is allowed and what is not?
MG: Simply discussing work is fine. Copyright protects expression, not the ideas themselves.
SoB: What is permissible when discussing a paper that uses a Creative Commons license (e.g. PLoS Medicine), and how does this differ from discussing of a paper with a more traditional copyright (e.g. the New England Journal of Medicine)?
JW: It’s important to realize that the CC license has to do with copying and distributing a creative work, not talking about the creative work! Thus, there is no difference in discussing a PLoS article from a NEJM article. The ideas in each article themselves are not copyrightable, only the way the ideas are expressed through the grace and flow of the styling and writing, and so forth. This is known as the idea-expression dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide) and is essential to understanding the role that CC licenses play. But we can all talk about ideas.
Fair use is an exception and limitation to copyright in the United States. It can be relied on by anyone for certain uses of a copyrighted work, whether or not the work is licensed under a CC license. There is no bright line about what is fair use or not, however, and whether it applies depends on the particulars of the situation.
Now, when discussing a paper, it is plausible that one might want to quote passages from the paper or display a table. These are uses that one might believe to be fair use (and I certainly believe so) but it’s definitely the case that some traditional publishers (who don’t use CC licenses) have brought copyright claims against bloggers and writers who have made such quotes and displays (my favorite such ludicrous story is that of Shelly Batts, see http://scienceblogs.com/retrospectacle/2007/04/when_fair_use_isnt_fair_1.php). The benefit to CC licenses, however, is that even if fair use doesn’t apply, a publisher that uses CC licenses would see this kind of quoting and displaying, generally, as a Good Thing, as evidence of increased impact (PLoS actively tracks its articles in the news!). To repurpose a famous quote from software, quoting and display is a feature of online open access, not a bug.
Social Media Can Improve Healthcare, But Are Doctors Holding Us Back?
Mar 7th
Travis’ Note: Today’s Guest Post is from Houston Neal from Software Advice. The original article was posted here. Thanks to Michael Koploy for bringing this post to our attention, and to Software Advice for allowing us to share this content here at Science of Blogging.
“Tremendous.” A surprising word to come up in discussion about healthcare. But this is the word I heard several times in recent conversation on social media and medicine.
“Doctors have a tremendous opportunity to help patients online,” said Dr. Kevin Pho, better known as @kevinmd.
“If you look at [social media in] healthcare, the benefits to everyone are tremendous,” agrees Howard Luks, orthopedic surgeon and Chief of Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy at University Orthopedics, PC.
Putting these together, we might say, “social media has a tremendous opportunity to improve healthcare.”
But doctors have been slow to adopt social media. Why? Why aren’t they using social media to talk with other professionals, connect with patients and share information with the public?
The time commitment, concerns of liability, and naiveté are cited as major causes. But I think these miss the bigger picture. Social media is about more than the relationships between individuals. It’s about the dissemination of information. Information that can improve health care and save lives.
An Extension of the Exam Room
More and more Americans are going online to look for health information. Estimates are as high as 81%. While some argue this makes doctors less relevant, I think otherwise.
Social media allows doctors to extend their influence beyond the exam room. It allows them to share valuable information with patients, the public, and each other.
“Information is the new third party in the exam room,” says Dr. Bryan Vartabedian, attending physician at Texas Children’s Hospital. “We can influence information that our patients are reading. Doctors need to be part of the conversation to have a positive impact.”
Social media allows us to share information at a speed and distance that was once impossible. It presents a new opportunity to prevent, diagnose, and treat diseases. In some cases, even save lives. But we still need more engagement from healthcare professionals. Doctors have an opportunity – and an obligation – to join us in sharing information online.
Scienceblogging Roundup - February 27-March 5
Mar 5th
While we post lengthy discussions here on Science of Blogging, there are many research updates, news stories, videos, etc. related to science communication that we come across on a daily basis that never grace the pages of the blog. Most of these mini-stories we share with our followers on Twitter, and we encourage those of you with active Twitter accounts to communicate with us there to get real-time updates of all the stuff we are discussing (Follow Peter and/or Follow Travis). For those of you who shy away from Twitter, enjoy below the best mini-stories that we came across during the prior week along with links to the original source so that you can follow the full story.
- Communicating science online - our friends at Peer Review Radio interview a who’s who of science communication, including Bora Zivkovic (editor of Scientific American blogs), Greg Gbur (Dr Skyskull) and others. Definitely worth checking out. (Peer Review Radio).
- Web breaks echo-chambers, or, ‘Echo-chamber’ is just a derogatory term for ‘community’ - an epic post recapping Bora Zivkovic’s speech at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (A Blog Around the Clock).
- How to make a blogging business plan… whether or not it’s a business blog - great advice on how to plan for success with any blog (Problogger).
- What happens when your blog generates tons of discussion, but not of that discussion is on your blog itself? (Six Pixels of Separation).
- The mere existence of whales - this post doesn’t have much to do with the theory of science communication… it’s just a terrific example of how amazing it can be when done well (The Loom).
Those are the posts that caught our eye this week - did we miss any? Feel free to add them in the comments section below.
Have a great weekend!
Travis
How do Physicians Behave on Twitter?
Mar 2nd
As the popularity of social media has increased during the past few years, it is not surprising that the number of physicians using these tools has steadily increased. In general, I would argue that this is a very good thing. Social media can be an excellent tool for disseminating health information, and I know many physicians who use it extremely effectively to that end. The American Medical Association came out with a set of guidelines for physicians using social media in November of last year, and it seems to share my positive view of the benefits that physicians can experience online. From the guidelines:
The Internet has created the ability for medical students and physicians to communicate and share information quickly and to reach millions of people easily. Participating in social networking and other similar Internet opportunities can support physicians’ personal expression, enable individual physicians to have a professional presence online, foster collegiality and camaraderie within the profession, provide opportunity to widely disseminate public health messages and other health communication.
But the guidelines go on to point out that things can also get a little hairy online if you let your guard down.
Social networks, blogs, and other forms of communication online also create new challenges to the patient-physician relationship. Physicians should weigh a number of considerations when maintaining a presence online:
(a) Physicians should be cognizant of standards of patient privacy and confidentiality that must be maintained in all environments, including online, and must refrain from posting identifiable patient information online.
(b) When using the Internet for social networking, physicians should use privacy settings to safeguard personal information and content to the extent possible, but should realize that privacy settings are not absolute and that once on the Internet, content is likely there permanently. Thus, physicians should routinely monitor their own Internet presence to ensure that the personal and professional information on their own sites and, to the extent possible, content posted about them by others, is accurate and appropriate.
(c) If they interact with patients on the Internet, physicians must maintain appropriate boundaries of the patient-physician relationship in accordance with professional ethical guidelines just, as they would in any other context.
etc…
So how are physicians doing with their conduct using social media? More >



Are blog comments worth the trouble?
Mar 23rd
Posted by Travis Saunders in Science Blogging
11 comments
Comments on a blog are a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, when you receive comments it shows that your blog is affecting people enough that they want to respond. That’s a terrific feeling, and a gratifying one since most blogs (or at least any blog that I’ve been involved with) take weeks or months before they start to receive comments on a regular basis.
But on the other hand, comments often require some sort of response. The comment might pose a question related to your post, or offer a differing point of view that you’d like to discuss. The problem is that these responses take time - it takes time to find the information needed to answer questions, it takes time to decide how to craft your response, and it even takes time just sifting through the spam folder or approving comments manually (we have automatic approval on both of our blogs at the moment, which seems to be much better than when we had to approve each comment manually on our original Blogger blog).
The downsides of blog comments have been described best by super-blogger and author Seth Godin:
Personally, I’m of the belief that any blog performing science communication needs to allow comments, since they allow you to engage your readers in a discussion (as opposed to simply broadcasting at them), and they often improve the quality of the information available on your blog by providing different viewpoints or discussion topics (for an excellent look at the pros and cons of comments sections, check out this debate from Think Traffic).
So while I don’t lose quite as much sleep over comments as Seth Godin it can still be a problem if, (like me), you have only a finite amount of time to devote to blogging. As I’ve argued before, I think that blogging is absolutely worth the time commitment, but you still need to make decisions on the best use of your blog-related time. So is it worth spending an hour or two per week responding to comments, if it means that you’ll now have less time to write original content? Keep in mind that unless you’re an uber-blog like Pharyngula, your readers will stop commenting pretty quickly if they see that you’re just ignoring them. So you need to respond to at least some comments if you want to genuinely engage with people and not simply spam them with your own material. But how do you decide which comments to respond to?
When I have time I try to respond to every comment we receive, but when that’s not possible, this is how I triage them: I try to respond to all direct questions (even if it’s simply to say that I don’t know the answer) and any comment that happens to really pique my interest for whatever reason (usually because I either strongly agree or disagree with the comment). And if I’m too busy to give a detailed response, then I try to at least thank the person for taking the time to comment. It’s not ideal, but I’ve left plenty of comments on other blogs that have been completely ignored, and would have loved to receive a “Nice thoughts, thanks for contributing to the discussion” in return.
And finally, there is the issue of “problematic” comments. This is a huge reason why many people are afraid to enter social media in the first place, and can include things like vulgarity and personal attacks, but can also include questions about specific personal medical questions for those of us blogging about health-related topics. The medical questions are easy to deal with - don’t practice medicine through social media, whether you’re a physician or not (some good tips for physicians specifically can be found here). Put up a disclaimer saying that you can’t answer personal health questions, and just refer people to it if you feel any questions cross the line.
I find rude and/or inflammatory comments are harder to deal with. My personal tactic is to respond to every comment as though I were responding to a question at a conference. For example, if someone is being obnoxious at a conference, you can politely say something like “I’d be happy to discuss this with you after the presentation, but I think it’s time to move on” and that almost always solves the problem. You can do pretty much the same thing on a blog. It doesn’t always work but I tend to think that you have a lot to lose from being rude to any commentator, and very little to gain. Even more so when you blog under your own name. And if a comment is down-right unpublishable, then you can simply delete it, or delete the offending passages (in which case I make it clear that I’ve edited the comment). I try to avoid that unless it’s absolutely unavoidable (e.g. the comment is openly racist or included a lot of F-bombs), which has only happened once or twice in 2+ years of blogging.
Most of my blog posts and the comments they receive are pretty uncontroversial, so that has probably coloured my view of comments in general, as well as my strategies for managing difficult comments them in particular. For an excellent example of how to manage comments on controversial topics, I highly recommend this recent post on autism by Steve Silberman. He manages to rebut pointed (and sometimes nonsensical) arguments in an extremely professional way, and I think it really enhances the impact of his overall message.
How do you deal with comments?
I’m really curious to hear how other people deal with comments on their blogs. How do you decide whether or not to respond at all? Do you publish all comments, or only those that you feel add value to the discussion? When do you decide not to publish a comment? And how do you deal with problematic comments?
I look forward to your comments
Travis