Skip to main content

Field of Science Welcomes 7 New Science Blogs


But before I get to the good stuff--new science bloggers--humor me while I digress and scratch the itch (read: kernel of truth) in the above joke.

About this time a year ago Bora left ScienceBlogs. In a post we're all familiar with, Bora speculated about the nature of science blog networks and their future. In that post, he mentions the other science blog networks including Field of Science. Networks he does not mention in that post dated July 19, 2010 include: Wired, Scientopia, Guardian, PLoS, SciAm[1]. Why did Bora omit these science blog networks? Because, at that time, they didn't exist.

In the year since PepsiGate the aformentioned nonexistent science blog networks were born. In response to each "birth" the science blogosphere has found a reason or two to navel gaze and congradulate one another... Inevitably, these meta science blogging posts inspire comparisons and/or lists: of science blog networks. But if you were to use those posts to generate your own list of science blog networks, it would be far from complete. In fact, aside from ScienceBlogs, you'd be hard pressed to find a network on your list that existed prior to PepsiGate.

I've digressed because, frankly, I'm extremely unconforatble with PR--prefering instead to let the content speak for itself. But as a constant reader of Field of Science I have to say, the quality of the content is there, but it appears only a few people are listening (see dearth of inclusion of FoS detailed above).

I blame myself for this lack of awareness that Field of Science is a premier science blog network.  I've failed to mention that it predated PepsiGate by well over a year; it finds and promotes new, fresh voices in science; it is diverse on every level; it is innovative and dynamic; and it was doing all these things and more long before those other networks even existed. So there, I've said it.  Are you listening science blogosphere?  The next time you put together a list of "high-profile" or "major" science blog networks, or decide to complain about a the old boys club[2] in science blogging, will you include mention of Field of Science?  If not, I'd like to know why not.

But now to the good stuff.  The stuff that speaks for itself.  The 7 new blogs at Field of Science:


Read them, comment, subscribe and expect more to come.

On the design side, we've added a drop down menu of blogs (because who can remember all those abbreviations) under the down arrow "↓" to the left of the quick navigation menu at the top of the page.

Finally, if you are new to Field of Science and now you are curious about FoS, we have an about page, a contact form and comments.

[1] A list and a map (not to scale) of science blog networks.

[2] But of course, if you include Field of Science, you'll have to use it as the exception to the rule.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A New Wave of Science Blogging?

One can imagine science bloggers would be a (the) primary beneficiary in a landscape where Google ranks sites based on the correctness of factual information provided by the [blog] .  What's more, it is not a stretch to conclude that science bloggers could very well be in the vanguard of a new wave of bloggers who earn Google’s trust by blogging within the confines of what is known. The news that Google is working on a system of ranking sites based on the quality of their facts should be greeted by science bloggers everywhere as a game-changer.

How to tell the difference between a Science Blog Network, a Fanny Pack and a Backpack

This is a network: http://scienceblogs.com This is a fanny pack: http://blogs.nature.com This is a backpack: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/science-blogs/ This is a network: http://www.fieldofscience.com/ This is a fanny pack: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ This is a backpack: http://gu.com/scienceblogs This is a network: http://sciblogs.co.nz/ This is a fanny pack: http://blogs.plos.org This is a backpack: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ This is a network: http://scientopia.org/ This is a fanny pack: http://gam.southernfriedscience.com/ This is a backpack: http://www.labspaces.net/blogs

Are Female Science Bloggers More Likely To Blog Anonymously Than Male Science Bloggers?

Google+'s real name policy sparked a lively debate in the science blogosphere. On the side of anonymity it was observed that women risk more than men when they use their real names. We know that women experience 25 TIMES the amount of harassment online that men do. I light of this blanket disparity in risk you might expect to find--or even assume--that the percentage of women in science blogging anonymously is greater than that of their male counterparts. Sifting through the Census of Science Bloggers data I realized I had a sample with which to test this assumption. But to get there I first had to answer another burning question: I wonder what the overall gender ratio is among science bloggers?   The answer, based on the census data, is approximately 2 male science bloggers for every 1 female science blogger. Again, based on the census sample, 15% of all science bloggers post anonymously. Now does that percentage change when you divvy the sample up into male and female?