There's a more fundamental question of whether Luskin's post meets the guidelines for its use. While some people raised the issue of whether a review article meets the requirement of "peer reviewed research" and questioned whether EN&V can be called a blog (since it lacks a comment section), two other issues were more important:
- The post author should have read and understood the entire work cited.
- The blog post should report accurately and thoughtfully on the research it presents.
In trying to define science bloggers, I suggested that
- Science bloggers blog about science because they find it interesting
- Science bloggers are interested in communicating their field of interest to people outside of their immediate field
- Science bloggers are frequently motivated by a desire to defend science against pseudoscience and denialism
Posts on this issue
- Is this post following our guidelines? - Dave Munger, BPR3 blog. This is the central hub for discussion of the issue, and the how ResearchBlogging community should proceed with issues like this.
- Blogging About Peer-Reviewed Research at the Discovery Institute - Mike Dunford, The Questionable Authority. This is the post where Mike introduced the issue (at least to me).
- Luskin and the Peer-Reviewed Research Icon - the Saga Continues - Mike Dunford, The Questionable Authority. Mike talks about Luskin's "I didn't know, it's not my fault, I didn't realise it was copyright" reply.
- Oops! Another Discovery Institute Abuse & Misuse - Kevin Z, The Other 95%. Kevin Z has a good analysis of Luskin's post in the context of the ResearchBlogging guidelines, and then goes on to discuss the Origel article that Luskin quote mined.
- Dishonesty Institute - John Pieret, Thoughts in a Haystack.
- Casey Luskin is a Douchbag - Mister DNA, CBEB's (whose icon I'm stealing). He points out the irony in Luskin doing this so soon after his use of cease-and-desist letters to get Les Lane to take down a picture of Luskin (irony is lost on this man, isn't it?)
- BSpr3 -BullShit on peer reviewed research - SPARC, molecular B(io)LOG(y). SPARC suggests that we need a new icon for stuff like Luskin's paper.
- More Discovery Institute Shenanigans - Jessa, Impolite Conversations.
- Why I Love the BPR3 Icon and Hate Creationists for Abusing It - Greg Laden, Greg Laden's blog
- Casey Luskin demonstrates "fair use" doctrine - Joe McFaul, Law Evolution Science and Junk Science. He makes some very interesting points about fair use (Luskin's use is not) and how Luskin's use "affect[s] the market" of the ResearchBlogging brand. Fascinating stuff.
- Casey Luskin Demonstrates that ID Stands for Insidious Deception - Mike O'Risal, Hyphoid Logic. Mike makes a good point - while it's bad to use the icon inappropriately, the real problem is that he is unwilling to allow feedback. And, of course, it's a perfect encapsulation of the main problem with ID - their refusal to present their ideas for peer review.