This isn’t the prettiest slideshow I’ve ever seen, but it does a good job of proposing a methodology by which to analyze the existence of communities represented and created by science blogs. I found two points particularly interesting.
One, the definition of how “science blog” is defined, and would very much like to see the list of science blogs included in the analysis – rather like a systematic review. I checked her website (http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~cpikas/ScienceBlogging/index.html) but perhaps she isn’t quite ready to share that sort of information about her methodology. Maybe after it is published?
Two, that the commenting/co-citation behaviors are very different across genders. I find that not unexpected, but provocative for several reasons, raising many more questions than it answers. Is it simply that women tend to be more social in general? Is it that women tend to be minorities in science and need to support each other more in the absence of other local supports? Is the same true of other minorities in science? What does this say about gender inequities and recruitment/retention in science? Are men missing the potential of Science 2.0 applications in their own research work? Will the emergence of Science 2.0 provide a springboard to shift domination of science research across the gender divide?