Maintaining a blog can be a boon to your career, increasing your profile in the scientific community, connecting you to collaborators, and helping you land new grants or jobs.
Research-intensive universities have presided over a decline in the quality of undergraduate teaching as they neglect students in the pursuit of research excellence - says the VC of one of the biggest.
The turn to online research is narrowing the range of modern scholarship, a new study suggests. Diversity will be lost if networks do not specifically include it (see http://scienceoftheinvisible.blogspot.com/search?q=wisdom+of+crowds).
"free, social networking site that enables scientists, engineers, and other technical professionals to connect, collaborate with ... world-wide scientific communication and incorporates the newest social networking technologies." - "Yet another Facebook for Scientists that I am unlikely to use." http://tinyurl.com/55ngbf
For collecting and disseminating scientific information, the most popular tool is Wikipedia (70.4% of total respondents), followed by emailing peers (67.9%), and online forums (42.0%). Those pursuing professional development are most likely to email their peers (49.4%), utilize the LinkedIn network (43.2%), or visit Wikipedia (39.5%). Social networking is most popularly practiced with Facebook (59.3%), emailing peers (49.4%), and blogs (42.0%).
A three-year research project, headed by Mimi Ito, involving 28 researchers and 800 subjects, and sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation, finds that the stereotypical idea of the Internet as a soul-devouring, anti-social wasteland for our kids is just plain wrong.
Social networking web sites are popular among adolescents and may represent a new venue for conducting adolescent health research. Conducting research by using social networking web sites raises several concerns, including the social value of this researc
Since the reason for the variable degree of success of online social tools for scientists is largely attributed to the lack of participation, I think a great way to pull in participation by scientists would be to offer that kind of value up-front. You give it a paper or set of papers, and it tells you the ones you need to read next, or perhaps the ones you’ve missed. My crazy idea was that a recommendation system for the scientific literature, using expert-scored literature to find relevant related papers, could do for papers what Flickr has done for photos.