Hi,

I just completed by doctorate in physics, and thought I'd share some thoughts,
as to why blogs dont necessarily work as well in mathematics oriented fields
such as physics, math, chemistry, but ought to do much better in 'text' oriented
fields such as biology and social sciences.

Firstly, linking to papers is pervasive throughout science. Back in 1994, we
used www.arxiv.org(then xxx.lanl.gov) to post and search for papers in physics.
This happened faster in my field(astrophysics) than in some others.

However, the web is presently a poor medium for mathematics. Only mozilla
supports mathml, and its only now that tex and latex-to-mathml converters are
appearing. latex2html uses gifs for equations, believe me its much preferable
to read papers on paper than on a screen for this reason, as well as the fact
that the concentration level needed is much higher. Again this applies to
mathematical sciences only.

Secondly, the existence of papers in pdf/ps format rather than html means that
its hard to hyperlink to sections or concepts in mathematical sciences. This
does not hold for social sciences.

Thirdly, the peer network based on scientific reputation governs what actually
gets read, so linking dosent really represent a good measure of importance.
Rather, download statistics at arxiv, and linking via citation, which are
extracted and available on the web represent a better metric. Unfortunately what
a scientist has downloaded is not public info, and i suspect wont be. So I
suspect that
in social sciences where papers can easily be webized, blog linking will play
a greater part as time goes on, but not in mathematical sciences.

Fourthly, there are three collaboration patterns I have seen in science.
Firstly, local group meetings, which are informal, and often not for external
consumption..regardless of what anyone tells you, secrecy is important in
science as it
becomes the difference between first publication and second. The granularity
of exchange in this scenario is more file based than blog-stream based. In my
experianece a webdav server works better. However, a klog would help here to
aid recollection, but I am not convinced that the volume of files and the fact
that the members of the group usually track their own contributions will make
blogs a prominent mode here. Something more file-and summary oriented would be
better, ie drag a file into a folder, something pops up asking you to summarize,
and one can access history easier. Secondly, collaboration with people at other
insitutes happens mainly on a one-one level, for which email is perfectly
aderquate. Once again, a data store would help. Thirdly, multi-scientist
collaboration
usually happens through a face-face meeting at a conference, or through each
scientist handling their speciality in a paper. The interactions again usually
turn out to be hub and spoke, or 2 at a time.

Again all of the above is true in math oriented sciences. I dont know enough
about how other scientists collaborate. I suspect the close-knit group observa-
tion will hold true.

Fifthly, for k-logging to be more used in math sciences, it needs k-log software
on the desktop for unix. Most of us use unix because good quality scientific
apps and existing specialized apps, as well as latex/postscript, etc work best
on unix presently, or dont exist on windows/mac. Mac may be changing with its
BSD roots, and the fact that x-windows is available for mac (x-windows is the
basic unix gui, its network aware, a app on one machine can display on another,
and has been that way since 1987). Finally windows and mac licenses add up
for research groups, as does commercial software. Its not a co-incidence that
mathematical sciences use linux desktops more than others, like biologists,
who use lots of linux servers for computation, but macs on their desktops. So
until klogging comes to the unix desktop, i dont see much hope for it. Email,
postscript, latex, these are lowest common denominators amongst all such
scientists, and thus get used more.

Having said all that, I have to say that in my dual life as a physicist and
programmer, internal weblogs have been useful as a way to keep my own thoughts
down and keep links to important papers. They have been more useful in my
life as a programmer though...
Rahul

On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 02:29:52PM -0000, paquetse2001 wrote:
> I thought I'd share something I recently posted to my weblog with
> you. Visit the web page to get the links.
>
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/2002/07/30.html#a14
>
> The Case for using K-logs in Research
>
> K-Logs are a close fit to the academic culture. Here are ten reasons
> why.
>
> . Scholars value knowledge. They have a lot of it to manage and
> track.
>
> . A scholar's professional survival depends on name recognition. A K-
> log can help provide visibility and recognition.
>
> . Scholars are used to writing; most of them can write well.
>
> . Scholars are geographically disparate. They need to nurture
> relationships with people that they seldom meet in person.
> Scholars need to interlink in a person-to-person fashion (see
> Interlinktual)
>
> . Scholars already rely heavily on interpersonal trust and direct
> communication to determine what new stuff is worth looking at. Such
> filtering is one of the central functions weblog communities excel
> at.
>
> . For many scholars, the best collaborations come about when they
> find someone who shares their values and goals (this is argued e.g.
> in section 3 of Phil Agre's excellent Networking on the Network). The
> personal output that is reflected in one's weblog makes it much
> easier to check for such a match than work that is published through
> other channels.
>
> . Scholars recognize the value of serendipity. Serendipity can come
> pretty quickly through weblogging; see Manufactured Serendipity.
> Every scholar must strive to be a knowledge hub in his niche, and an
> expert in related areas. A K-log is a good medium for this, as it is
> a way of letting knowledge flow through you while adding your
> personal spin.
>
> . Scholars pride themselves on being independent thinkers. K-logs
> epitomize independent thought.
>
> The above points hold whatever the field of inquiry. Actually they
> are some of the reasons why researchers created the Internet and the
> Web in the first place. Weblogs, as an evolved, living form of web
> home pages, simply increase the incentive to get involved.
>
> However a number of issues might cause resistance to the adoption of
> weblogs by academics (and other people as well):
>
> . It takes time.
>
> . "The technology is not well-established and tested at this point."
>
> . Many people don't like being among the first ones doing something.
>
> . Not all scholars are used to the Web and hypertext.
>
> . Shyness and fear of public mistakes. Many scholars won't write
> unless they have to. They may especially be reluctant to publicly
> expose ideas that they haven't tested.
>
> . Fear that someone else will pick up their ideas and work them out
> before they do.
>
> This being said, a few researchers have dared to start weblogging.
> The best list I have found is compiled by Jill Walker: Research
> Blogs. See also the interesting article Blogging Thoughts: Personal
> Publication as a Research Tool by Mortensen and Walker.
>
> Sebastien Paquet
> Weblog: Seb's Open Research
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> klogs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>