Thursday, January 20, 2011

Is Nature really clueless about Blogs, Twitter, etc? WTF ?!

My apologies for this rant in the early morning, but WTF?? (what the fuzz??) I just got pointed to this Peer review: Trial by Twitter (doi:10.1038/469286a) by Mandavilli. Cool title, but before I even finished seventeen words of the intro... WTF?? Here it is:

    Blogs and tweets are ripping papers apart within days of publication, leaving researchers unsure how to react.

What?? Is she mocking me? I know (I have been a reported of a university news paper) that intros must encourage the reader to read on... but What?? (And I read the intro a third time...)

I'll have to read the full thing later, if that makes more sense. But is she clueless? Are all people clueless about blogging, tweeting, etc?? Remember Royce Murray? Has she actually read the Trial by Twitter only so recently?

Dear Mandavilli, in case you do run into this blog post, here's my reply to your intro: "The researchers have no problems how to react, they just did."

Now, after I cooled down a bit, and anticipating I got it all wrong, she might refer to the researchers of the publication being ripped apart. In that case, I am tempted to believe that also in the English language one is expected to use (well, forgive me I do not know the exact term) "leaving the researchers ...", where 'the' links 'researchers' to something said earlier. Now, I read, probably wrong, researchers as any researcher interested in that publication. Mandavilli could even have written "leaving the authors...". But what do we have Nature editors for, right?

Anyways, I do believe this will be an interesting read once I managed to read past (for the fourth time) the intro of this article.


1 comment:

  1. From the context, I understood it to mean "authors" - as in, the authors of the paper that's being blogged/tweeted about.

    That 'Arsenic DNA' paper is probably a good recent example; there was a huge amount of (quite legitimate) criticism.