More peer review of my blog articles

I've gotten some more feedback on one of my Journal Club posts, from Sean Carroll and Chris Hittinger, the authors of the Nature paper on gene duplication that was the focus of one of my recent reviews of an article from the recent scientific literature. Chris identified some minor imperfections, and I've revised the original post in response to his comments.

This got me thinking. Most of my Journal Club posts are constructed according the BPR3 guidelines, and are indicated as such by the "Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research" icon. The icon, and my participation in the BPR3 organization, are meant to direct readers to blogging that adheres to the kinds of academic and scientific standards that characterize real scholarship.

But some of my posts have actually been reviewed, by the authors of the scientific articles about which I've written. That is, some of my articles have been peer reviewed, and this means that I'm particularly confident in the completeness and accuracy of that work. So I designed a new icon, to indicate a post of mine that has been peer reviewed, by at least one of the coauthors of the research under discussion. Three of my posts now display the new icon. I've also instituted a new topic label, "Peer-reviewed blog post," which will only be attached to articles that have undergone this type of review.

So look for my "This post was peer reviewed" icon on certain Journal Club posts, indicating that:

• the post was read by at least one of the authors of the scientific article discussed in the post; and
• the post was revised to address any corrections or clarifications offered by the reviewer(s).

And don't thank me -- thank the busy and hard-working scientists who take the time to read the blog entries and provide thoughtful feedback as well as encouragement. These folks are typically quite pleased to know that Christians want to read and understand their work. So, thanks to them, and thanks to you for reading.