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
Creationism and Intelligent Design Skewed views of science 16 Jan 2009 Larry Moran points us to the following video on what science is and why pseudoscience is not to be taught or accepted without serious evidence (which makes it science). My only comment to add is that emotional appeals are information and evidence, but they are information and evidence about the… Read More
Administrative Travel Diary 13: Berkeley talk 6 Nov 2009 Well, yet again I have utterly utterly failed to embarrass my university by making an idiot of myself in public. In short, the talk (on the Essentialism Myth) to the Vertebrate Zoology crowd at Berkeley went very well I am told. I believe them because instead of sending me on… Read More
Ecology and Biodiversity Genetic engineering and organic farming 14 Aug 2008 The heir apparent to some minor European royal family has again demonstrated his lack of knowledge and trust in scientific matters. The Prince, who has previously said that he talks to plants and consults gurus, apparently failed to talk to any actual, you know, scientists who might clear up 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.