Icons for peer-reviewed blogging 29 Oct 200718 Sep 2017 The above are icons to be used when blogging on actual peer-reviewed research (as opposed to popular reports or kookery). I had a marginal involvement in this (I made some passing comments early on) so it is with great pride… no, actually, it’s all down to Dave Munger, who was a champion. I had nothing useful to do with it. Here’s what Dave said: We’re pleased to announce that BPR3‘s Blogging on Peer Reviewed Research icons are now ready to go! Anyone can use these icons to show when they’re making a serious post about peer-reviewed research, rather than just linking to a news article or press release. Within a month, these blog posts will also be aggregated at BPR3.org, so everyone can go to one place to locate the most serious, thoughtful analysis and commentary on the web. I encourage science bloggers to use this wisely, to identify a blog about actual reviewed papers. I guess it also applies to us humanities types too. Administrative General Science Logic and philosophy
Evolution Religion and science 15 Jul 2007 There has been a bit of a resurgence of science versus religion posts and chatter in various forums* that I inhabit when I’m not working lately. It occurred to me that it might be time to do one of my sermons. There are basically two popular views of the relation… Read More
Administrative Talkorigins.org back up 12 Jan 2009 The website www.talkorigins.org is now back up, although links to the temporary archive www.toarchive.org/ still work for now. The story is roughly this – the company (joker.com) we bought the domain name from reassigned the IP number for the site as part of changing their data centre. They apparently sent… Read More
Administrative Who… are you? 5 Jul 2010 Sorry. Dave Grohl moment there. All the Cool Kids at Scienceblogs are asking their readers to identify themselves. So, if the Cool Kids do it, I have to as well (why yes, I did have problems at high school. Why do you ask?). I hope they don’t leap over a… Read More
I don’t get why your post on Ruse’s entry in SEP was notated as a peer-reviewed item. Am I missing something?
Thanks for your help John. We’ve appreciated your support. And, as you point out, the icon can indeed be used by “humanities types” — it’s something I’ve insisted on from the beginning. It’s about blogging based on *research*, not just science research.
Okay, I was under the impression that this particular piece by Ruse was more of an editorial than a peer-reviewed article. But, I have never been a philosophy student, so it is hard for me to tell the difference.
I know this because I am a coauthor on one of the articles, and my revisions have been subjected to peer review. Maybe Ruse’s contributions aren’t, but as I understand it, the entire publication is.
Of course I trust you on this and I wasn’t questioning you, I was just trying to get some clarification.