The Science 2.0 movement, which was established to democratize science and make it more accessible, quickly gained popularity within the cultural sphere. Blogging became a widespread activity, with corporate media offering contracts to scientists and outlets like the BBC exploring the idea of publishing user-generated content. However, as blogging trend eventually waned, social media emerged as a new platform for sharing information. While social media changed the landscape of journalism, it did not necessarily contribute to knowledge creation and scientific peer review.
In contrast to public perception that blogging acted as a barrier for science-related content, pay-to-publish journals claiming to be peer-reviewed inundated scientists with an overwhelming amount of information. Scholarly podcasting is now being considered as a transformative way of creating and reviewing expert knowledge. A new book discusses the historical evolution of scholarly communication norms and speculates on the potential impact of new methods of knowledge creation. However, there are some limitations to consider. For example, Google search algorithms will need to adapt to process audio content and establish credibility. Additionally, AI technology can easily generate audio content, posing challenges for listeners who may be more accustomed to reading scientific papers.
As we look towards the future, it seems that AI now capable of generating content is making it necessary for creation of large language model (LLM) differentiate legitimate scientific research from epidemiology papers linking common chemicals to human diseases. Podcasting may just be the beginning of a new era in academic discourse but its ability to revolutionize the way we view scholarly work remains uncertain while celebrities like Joe Rogan and NFL’s Manning brothers have shown its power but we must also consider its limitations before fully embracing it as a method of knowledge dissemination.
