Science in science blogs

Should science bloggers distinguish between posts that cover peer reviewed research and those that focus on more light hearted matters like quizzes, photos of other bloggers down the pub and science in the mainstream media?
Dave Munger at Cognitive Daily thinks so. Last week he suggested creating an icon that bloggers could add to 'serious' posts that would help identify them as being academic in nature. He posed some interesting follow-up questions: how would you control usage? What is the definition of 'serious' in this context?
The idea was well recieved and now there's a web site at BPR3.org where Dave and others are soliciting comments, ironing out the details and deciding exactly how the scheme is going to work.
The idea so far in bulletpoints (from BPR3.org):
- The BPR3 icon will represent, most importantly, a blog post that thoughtfully discusses peer-reviewed research.
- All research should be formally cited according to the requirements of the discipline within which it falls, and linked when possible.
- The post should make it clear when it is discussing research or ideas that are not peer reviewed.
- The poster should have carefully read all research cited.
- The icon should link back to the BPR3.org site in the manner we specify (this will depend on the method we choose for aggregating posts).
I think this is an excellent idea (in principle, anyway) and something that publishers should support. Blog trackbacks are a good complement to user comments on papers, but it's hard to tell (in an automated way) if a post is discussing a paper in detail or just mentioning it in the passing - by checking to see if trackbacked pages contain the icon we could filter out irrelevant posts.
Distinguishing research from everyday blogging was one of the ideas behind Postgenomic. By adding some code to your html when linking to a paper - "rev='review'", to be precise - you can tell Postgenomic that your post is reviewing that paper. This never really took off, partly because... well, it's a bit boring to add markup to your posts by hand and see no immediate return. An icon could, at least, grab people's imagination, though you'd want machine readable metadata embedded somewhere appropriate too...

Comments
I think this is a great idea. Let the individual decide which of his posts merits such a classification.
A lot of the anti-blogging people have a good complaint against blogs that its hard to filter out the signal from the noise.
If aggregators like postgenomic and scintilla continue focusing and highlighting these posts, it might just help lure more scientists into reading and participating.
Posted by: Hari Jayaram | August 17, 2007 09:49 AM
Why the concentration on peer reviewed research? I understand that it makes sense to use markup to annotate the topic of a post - but why must it be "peer reviewed research"? Why not use the same markup for technical reports and stuff on preprint servers? And marking something as not peer reviewed invites a nice paradox - assuming I'm working in the same area and write a review - doesn't this mean that the work *is* peer-reviewed - because of the simple fact that I as a peer just wrote a review (not in a formal process, but peer reviewed nonetheless).
And this blanket believe in peer review is in any case unworthy of a modern scientist - there are lots of conferences and workshops where the review process is very lax; there are lots of magazine articles, technical reports and even blog posts that have a higher quality than some peer reviewed stuff. Yes, the review process at Nature, SIGGRAPH etc. guarantees a very high quality - but remember that of all things carrying the "Peer reviewed label" such high level conferences/publications make up just a small part.
Posted by: Valentin | August 17, 2007 11:01 AM
The idea of BPR3 is to "identify blog posts and articles that discuss peer-reviewed research". Given this definition, it is easy to define which of the posts you write deserve to have the icon, and it should not be an individual decision, but rather objective.
I agree, though, with Valentin in the fact that maybe it would be worth extending the boundaries of the markup.
Posted by: Gon | August 17, 2007 02:11 PM