The latest Nature has an interesting piece on the impact of blogging and tweeting on peer reviewed publishing:
Trial by Twitter
It makes brief reference to the arsenic DNA story (see here and here), but the main theme is how all this immediate online commentary changes or could change the way we scientists publish. Personally, despite having my own blog where I can shoot off my opinion with little forethought at all, I tend to have a conservative streak when it comes to formal discussions. In other words, I enjoy the quick give-and-take of blogging about other people's papers, but I prefer to be more deliberate and careful when responding to my own critics, especially if they have significant criticisms. Hence the fact that I still have not responded to hominid baraminology critics nor to Phil Senter's use of baraminology to demonstrate evolution. I think some net addicts might interpret my silence negatively, but that's the way it goes. I like to ruminate on ideas sometimes.
And yes, I do relish the irony of a quick blog post on an article in Nature about bloggers who quickly post about articles published in journals. Say that three times fast.
Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com.