Scientific American faces firestorm after removing blog post about scientist being called a whore

So, its apparently ok to call someone a whore for NOT working for free for your commercial blogging enterprise. This is interesting to me for two reasons. First, its simply inappropriate for someone to call out a person as a whore. There is far too much incivility in online discourse. People say things online, even in direct ‘face to face’ online communications, which they would (we hope) never dream of saying in real life. As to the germ of the issue… Dr Lee was asked to do some blogging, she asked whether and how much remuneration was involved, and declined on hearing ‘nuttin’. Then she gets called a whore (which is odd as if she was doing things just for money…). But why do commercial blogs and online commerce organizations think they can freeride on academics? A few months ago I was asked to do a monthly online one hour virtual meeting room with clients of an investment bank. I asked “how much” and the answer was zippydoozero. I declined and as per here they whined on about how great an exposure it would be for me.
Companies : you operate in a commercial environment. That doesn’t end when you ask Prof Pointyhead to work for you.

Retraction Watch

We tend to stick to retractions in the peer-reviewed literature here at Retraction Watch, although we’ve made exceptions. Today’s post seemed like a good reason to make another exception, because while Nature Publishing Group-owned Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed journal, the science blogosphere and Twitter are lighting up this weekend with strong reactions to the magazine’s removal of a blog post by biologist Danielle Lee.

The incident was first noted by Dr. Rubidium, who wrote yesterday:

Scientist and science communicator @DNLee5 declined an offer to blog for free from biology-online.org and got called a ‘whore’.  @DNLee5 posted a thoughtful response on her Scientific American‘s blog ’The Urban Scientist‘.  A short time later, her response vanished

(You can read Lee’s original post on Dr. Isis’s blog.)

Yesterday morning, Scientific American editor-in-chief Mariette DiChristina responded on Twitter:

View original post 627 more words

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s