Forget Science Blogging vs. Science Journalism: Let's Talk Paywalls

Science blogging vs. science journalism: Isn't this debate over yet? Apparently not. Canadian journalist Colin Schultz points to a new study by two Northwestern doctoral students suggesting that science bloggers rely on more diverse sources than political bloggers or traditional science journalists.

Schultz writes:

They found that science bloggers, unlike the other two camps, rely on a higher diversity of sources, particularly primary literature or other academic work. Science bloggers are also much less self-referential; they don't talk about themselves as much.

This isn't exactly earth-shattering, and one could take issue with the idea that science bloggers don't talk too much about themselves (witness the PepsiCo debacle).

But one point raised in the comments – about linking to scientific journal articles that may be behind a paywall – is relevant for anyone, blogger or journalist, covering health issues. One of the commenters criticized mainstream media for not linking to primary sources like research articles, or at least abstracts. In fact, many health journalists and news outlets do just that. Some, like the BBC, do not, which has become a bit of a cause for doctor-blogger Ben Goldacre.

But really, how useful for your audience is a link to a journal article that may cost $30 or more to read? Have you ever convinced a journal or other content provider to liberate a particular article from its paywall so you could link to its full text? I have, on numerous occasions, in past years. Given the general rise of paywalls, however, I wonder if that's still an option.

What has your experience been? I welcome your thoughts in the comments below.

(Hat tip to ReportingonHealth member and science blogger Dr. Peter Lipson, who pointed me to Schultz's post.)