Online science blogs are a valuable forum for commenting on published research, but their present importance lies in complementing rather than replacing the current system of peer review.

A recent article in Science reported the identification of bacteria that could incorporate arsenic into its DNA, suggesting that phosphorus might not be an absolute requirement for life. What followed was a torrent of criticism in the blogosphere of the authors’ methods and conclusions and of the review process that led to the acceptance of the article for publication.

With the pervasiveness of the Internet, and the speed of communication it permits, commentary and criticism of research findings can occur almost immediately after their online publication. This medium should be actively embraced by the research community as a dynamic forum for discussion and contribution to scientific deliberation. It can enable anonymous participation in discussion without fear of retribution, and its accessibility equalizes the playing field of scientific discourse — whether you are an undergraduate or a Nobel prize winner, if you have something interesting to say, your views will be read.

But the blogosphere is not without its disadvantages. Although the Internet embraces free speech, it does not impose any requirement of assuming innocence before guilt (or technical sloppiness before fraud), and discussions can range from polite and constructive to openly hostile. Scientists’ online discussions should be fostered and ultimately should complement (even if they often don’t compliment) published research, but formal peer review nevertheless remains a valuable means of adjudicating what should be published and where.

(Click here to continue reading. Feel free to leave comments below.)