ScienceBlogs

ScienceBlogs
Typewebsite
StatusNo consensus No consensus
Deprecatedno
Blacklistedno
Recency2012
Domain scienceblogs.com
In source code

External links in articles

Spamcheck tool


Summary

ScienceBlogs is an invitation-only network of blogs. There is no consensus on the reliability of ScienceBlogs articles in general. Most editors consider ScienceBlogs articles written by subject-matter experts reliable, though articles outside the writer's relevant field are not. As a self-published source it should not be used as a source of information on other living persons. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.

Excerpt

ScienceBlogs was an invitation-only blog network and virtual community that operated initially for 11 years, from 2006 to 2017. It was created by Seed Media Group to enhance public understanding of science. Each blog had its own theme, specialty and author(s) and was not subject to editorial control. Authors included active scientists working in industry, universities and medical schools as well as college professors, physicians, professional writers, graduate students, and post-docs. On 24 January 2015, 19 of the blogs had seen posting in the past month. Eleven of these had been on ScienceBlogs since 2006. ScienceBlogs shut down at the end of October 2017. In late August 2018, the website's front page displayed a notice suggesting it was about to become active once again.

Discussions

RSN

Other

Recency

Stale discussions 2012

Rfcs

No Rfcs for this source.

Notes

References

    Original table row for comparison

    (remove this when this source page is ready to go live)

    Perennial sources
    Source Status
    (legend)
    Discussions Use
    List Last Summary
    ScienceBlogs No consensus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    A
    Stale discussions

    2012

    ScienceBlogs is an invitation-only network of blogs. There is no consensus on the reliability of ScienceBlogs articles in general. Most editors consider ScienceBlogs articles written by subject-matter experts reliable, though articles outside the writer's relevant field are not. As a self-published source it should not be used as a source of information on other living persons. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. 1 Links Spamcheck