20-04-2017, 08:22 AM
It is indeed a good idea to distinguish between various formats of publication. Just to be clear, I want people on the forum to feel free to discuss whatever they want, without the burden placed on academic writing. If tomorrow someone registers to the forum and points out the ivy/oak parallel, we can tell him that this is old news. The setting is informal enough, and since our philosophy with the forum is that it should be open to anyone, all styles of writing are okay, as long as they are polite of course.
Blog posts can really go both ways. If there is a possibility to embed your post in an existing discourse, I see no reason why not to do it. Also, since a blog post has more of a feel of a personal publication, I'd still advise to avoid plagiarism. We are doing research, not writing about kittens. If you used a source, just mention it, that's common sense.
Rene, you also seem to imply that all (good) academic writing is peer reviewed. That's just not true. On the one hand, I've read extremely interesting and well informed papers on academia.edu that were unpublished and unreviewed elsewhere, just to give one example.
And on the other hand, if peer review were a guarantee for academic quality, we wouldn't get Talbert & Tucker style papers (Nick summarizes it well here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ). It seems that Voynich research requires such a multidisciplinary approach that peer review has little impact on the reliability of the publication.
Blog posts can really go both ways. If there is a possibility to embed your post in an existing discourse, I see no reason why not to do it. Also, since a blog post has more of a feel of a personal publication, I'd still advise to avoid plagiarism. We are doing research, not writing about kittens. If you used a source, just mention it, that's common sense.
Rene, you also seem to imply that all (good) academic writing is peer reviewed. That's just not true. On the one hand, I've read extremely interesting and well informed papers on academia.edu that were unpublished and unreviewed elsewhere, just to give one example.
And on the other hand, if peer review were a guarantee for academic quality, we wouldn't get Talbert & Tucker style papers (Nick summarizes it well here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ). It seems that Voynich research requires such a multidisciplinary approach that peer review has little impact on the reliability of the publication.