Nature has launched a new companion weblog for it's Nature Genetics journal. The blog is called Free Association. I see this as a significant move for Nature and science publications in general.
Although I have experience my usual irony in seeing these types of technologies (blogs, RSS etc.) being adopted in science. The irony being that the science community is always behind when it comes to the cutting edge of communications technology developed on the web. Or maybe it is just more science infotainment. I suspect not given that the added commentary might be a good way to keep up on Nature's advance online publications.
Comments
A good thing right ? ....
It looks like a positive thing. I don't know why I have this uneasy feeling about it. I have to admit that if it was another publisher starting to blog I would be more excited about it. Being Nature I can't help feeling that it might be a calculated move to build a sticky web environment around Nature content. I am probably just being paranoid :) Anyway .. they are trying. Good for them!
Positive reception over here...
Free Association could really become a successful blog with the many positive aspects about it. A name that sounds like blog to begin with, movable type, no adds - and they have been studying what's happening in science blogs (not much I would say) and many other blogs for a considerable amount of time. Unlike many other publishers that were trying to use blogs, FA could make it into noteworthy site.
It obv. is a move to enrich the Nature environment, not a scientist driven or even a personal blog. I see this rather positivly though.
Agreed
Enriching their environment is not, by default, an evil money-grabbing venture, is it? :-)
I'm inclined to agree with you - there is potential here. The stated purpose of discussing NG papers at greater length is also a nod in the direction of community peer review. There may also be an element of editor training involved. After all, there's a limited scope of opinions you can get from three referrees.
Quantity & Quality
Well, its update frequency can't be much worse than the Scientific American (last updated July?) or Science Functional Genomics (January) blogs.
I like the fact that they point out that comments can be as critical or controversial as you like. Presumably the posts themselves won't be particularly critical or controversial as they could be taken to represent the views and opinions of Nature Genetics as a large, eminently sue-able entity (maybe I'm wrong).
Nice to see the effort, though, especially in conjunction with things like Connotea.
Edit: I take back what I said about the Scientific American. Stupidly enough I was just looking in the wrong place.
Content is all
I see this as A Good Thing but like any blog, it will stand or fall on its content - quantity, quality, update frequency and how much comment it provokes.
On a related note, Spitshine's post about the Science Commons project is of interest.