How the blogosphere changes publishing

Peter is writing up a 1FTE grant proposal for someone to work on the question how automatic agents and, more interestingly, the blogosphere are changing, no improving, the dissemination of scientific literature. He wants our input. To make his work easy, I'll tag this item pmrgrantproposal and would ask everyone to do the same (Peter unfortunately did not suggest a tag himself). Here are pointers to blog items I wrote, related to the four themes Peter identifies.

The blogosphere oversees all major Open discussion

• Open Text Mining Interface and Bioclipse
• USPTO considers open source software prior art
• New InChI software beta: license issues resolved and InChIKey
• SMILES to become an Open Standard

The blogosphere cares about data

• Uncertainty in NMR based 3D protein models
• re: ACS RSS feeds are messed up
• Molecules in Wikipedia without InChIs

Important bad science cannot hide
I do not feel much like pointing to bad scientific articles, but want to point to the enormous amount of literature being discussed in Chemical blogspace: 60 active chemical blogs discussed just over 1300 peer-reviewed papers from 213 scientific journals in less than 10 months. The top 5 journals have 133, 78, 68, 57 and 48 papers discussed in 22, 24, 10, 11 and 18 different blogs respectively. (Peter, if you need more in depth statistics, just let me know...)

Two examples where I discuss not-bad-at-all scientific literature:

• Automatic Classification of thousands of Crystal Structures
• CDK Literature #2

Open Notebook Science
I regularly blog about the chemoinformatics research I do in my blog. A few examples from the last half year:

• CDK Workshop - Days #3 and #4
• Weka Decision Trees to Java Conversion
• RDF-ing molecular space
• Atom typing in the CDK
• Further Bioclipse QSAR functionality development

Update: after comments I have removed one link, which I need to confirm first.