The case for literature reviews within STEM in Steemit prior to posting
Abstract
This platform generates tons of new content. Giving credit where credit is due is one of the most important parts of science and STEM (the building blocks so to speak). With the blockchain we can look back and say, "wow" that person posted on that topic ages ago and now I/we/etc are going to build on those concepts and expand the ideas. If we do an internal search within this blockchain and reference these works prior in our posts we can reduce repetition and more importantly really build, evolve and grow ideas. Thus the value of the posts will go up (in utility/knowledge). And here the sky is really the limit (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Original photo, from central Asia by the author showing us that the sky is the limit. Where will Steemit take us, especially when we combine ideas, cite properly previous work, and distill the state-of-the-art in knowledge?
Introduction
Here I advocate that part of the literature review process for an STEM related (or perhaps any?) article, that a review of previous posts on this blockchain should also take place in addition to the classic (papers, internet, books, etc) review.
This is important because:
A) it helps us build ideas together and allow them to evolve
B) it stops repetition on the platform
How
There is a search function here (see Figure 2 below).
Figure 2: Screen capture from https://steemit.com showing the search function on the right.
Lets say I wanted to do a story on artificial intelligence (AI) and music. If we search for "AI music" in the search function, within this platform, we see the following in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Screen capture showing results of an internal search within the Steemit platform related to "AI music". By searching here, we can have a comprehensive understanding of what has or has not been review before on the platform. We can also easily build on previous discussions here as well, sometimes from within the comments or replies sections.
Thus for my literature review I could 100% use outside of Steemit articles/books/etc, but I could and should also review what was already produced here (for everything we make here is something new in theory). This gives a reference to the reader an up-to-date assessment of what was done to date and allows us to explore former ideas (since the are, here on the blockchain).
For example:
In A.I. & Music Connections : Futuristic Revolution of Cyberpunk Synchronicity & Singularity, @j1337 explores and discusses music in a world controlled by an all-powerful AI.
(Sorry for the mention @j1337 - you were first up on the internal search and cool article).
Etc etc etc with a review of the previous work on whatever topic you may or may not be working on. Of course keep reviewing the "normal" sources, but also referencing a latest and greatest portion from this blockchain.
Conclusions
I recommend that an internal steemit literature review be undertaken and referenced on the topic of your post (if you are in STEM). The danger is, without doing an internal Steemit literature review and without this referencing to former posts here on the same topic, to reiterate the idea from the abstract, there can be much repetition, and perhaps stunted evolution of ideas rather than organic growth and building of ideas from this global community.
What do the members of @steemstem, @curie, @geopolis etc think of this proposal?
Hopefully this gets people thinking. Clearly if someone thought of this before and posted on this before, please send your link!
I did a search within this platform and did not find anything truly the same (due diligence), see Figure 4.
Figure 4: Screen capture related to literature reviews of steemit posts. So much room for improvement.
Hope that helps? Enjoy and keep citing the global contributions and we can all grow together!
Bonus music
Lets not be new people making the same old mistakes. Lets make new mistakes (here's looking at you AI!) together built on a solid foundation of all of our combined ideas.
If you like this in anyway, please check out something less boring and prescriptive on my blog, perhaps talking about AI or science, or drones or #music or something cool like mountains.
Original words copyright @snowyknight
I think that you have a wonderful idea, because it would point me to other people writing on the same or similar topics that I may have an interest in. Everyone writes at a different comprehensive level, just like we all read things a little easier than other things. If I can get an explanation designed for an eight year old versus designed to show how smart the typer is, I would prefer to read the explanation for the eight year old rather than the one designed to impress a 65 year old professor who may or may not be able to help the young student pass his final exam.
Agreed. It is really more about getting similar ideas and people thinking about these ideas together than being elitist! :)
That being said there are no rules here and repetition (large and small) will happen. But for science and STEM writing, perhaps having referencing of some sort would be good for developing ideas and expanding them...
100% agreement about clear and simple writing too. Let us not over-complicate things, my reading is at a grade 4 level so I'm with you! Thanks for stopping by.
I've been mulling over this for the past day. Coming from an academic tradition, I certainly appreciate the value of a lit review in that format.
A lot of the STEM writing here is (rightfully) more science-popularization and engagement than publications. The reasons to do a lit review are a bit different in that context. Mainly to show that you're not retreading tired ground (although it's definitely fair game do the same topic but better or from a different perspective). A little bit to point curious readers to further resources.
Most of the good articles I've read here already do that sort of thing, albeit without a formal lit review. I know I certainly do a search to see if someone has written an article before me and try to point out relevant stuff to readers.
I think done well it would be beneficial, done as an academic lit review it would probably make the article too heavy-weight. The good authors are doing something like this and could be encouraged to do more, the bad authors will ignore it anyway.
The main drawback I can see is that in addition to not being fully necessary for a good popular article, a rigorous lit review requirement would be burdensome enough to ironically increase the amount of poor articles.
So, my waffle-y opinion is that it depends and I could argue it either way.
Hey @effofex, thanks for stopping by and for providing your insight on this. I agree with you on the waffle-y side. I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on it too as it is an interesting and perhaps important topic.
If I want to post a random photo to share with my followers, or even to share with myself, I can here. No worries.
This place is cool because we can post basically whatever we want. Hence check out this original content yak photo just because it seems like a good idea (since we are yaking).
Random personal photo of yaks in Central Asia (here is looking at you @shasta), very filtered to make it pink yaks.
But when we start thinking of science, either original science, which would be the logical step with the blockchain - blockchain publishing. Or through distilling previously published works through reviewing what was done previously. Either way a lit review is a good thing.
Now if I want to post random cool photos (about yaks or otherwise) doing a lit review is a bit over the top (get ready for the waffling), but for STEM or @SteemSTEM related posts, not a rigorous lit review but a gentle nod, would be good... hahaha. Thanks again and have a great day!
@snowyknight I can get behind 'not rigorous but a gentle node', at the very least it's a probably indicator of quality. Nice yak-ing with you.
The phenomenon of different authors writing posts about almost the same topic is indeed a thing that has not been addressed a lot, while it could be a strong point of improvement. In the first place I believe this should indeed be a habit before writing a post. I also once played with the idea of creating a wikipedia-like framework to store all interesting information that gets published here, but nothing eventually came from that. Now I feel like picking this project up again :D
What I would also find useful is a service, or something like a bot that tags authors who have written about similar content. This way you jump start discussions and keep up to date with latest posts.
Oh! Or maybe a browser extension that when you visit wikipedia, you get links of similar posts on steemit! Why are there only 24 hours in a day...
Thanks for stopping by and your thoughts on this. As a fairly new person here, I have seen duplication of the same topics on many times. It is not a bad thing per se, but there are better ways than just writing the same, or similar thing again without going into the details about what was written previously.
I like your idea of the @tagbot! or something similar. Would be really cool for them to say, hey go check out @samve as they may like what you think or vice versa (or disagree of course) both are good! The wiki-esque frame sounds good too. I agree. So little time, so much to do!
PS. @tagbot already exists so we would have to come up with a better name like @sciencebot - currently there is no user. A great opportunity!