So says study. So, hi 5, readers!:
ABSTRACT: This paper presents results from three studies on science blogging, the use of blogs for science communication. A survey addresses the views and motives of science bloggers, a first content analysis examines material published in science blogging platforms, while a second content analysis looks at reader responses to controversial issues covered in science blogs. Bloggers determine to a considerable degree which communicative function their blog can realize and how accessible it will be to non-experts Frequently readers are interested in adding their views to a post, a form of involvement which is in turn welcomed by the majority of bloggers.
We thought so, of course, but glad to hear.
For example,
In some cases, science blogs have triggered relevant academic discussions among experts. A prominent example is the controversy concerning an article in the journal Science regarding the potential of a type of bacteria to process arsenic instead of phosphorus to sustain itself [8]. The article was pre-released online in December 2010 and immediately received massive criticism in blogs, most notably by Rosemary J. Redfield [9], a microbiologist at the University of British Columbia. Through her blog and those of colleagues, a group of scientists began exchanging and collecting criticism of the original study. This contributed to eight ‘Technical Comments’ that appeared alongside the original article in the printed issue of Science in June, 2011, and two papers that replicate the original study but come to different conclusions, published in Science in July, 2012.
We covered that row here. We were probably more fun than some sources.
Follow UD News at Twitter!