The excerpt copied below from one of #MySciBlog research interviews speaks for itself. It represents a few very common themes in my analysis (so far) of qualitative interviews with science bloggers about their practices and especially their content decisions. One of these themes is the science blog as a place for opinion, interpretation and/or personal commentary. In other words, relatively few science bloggers I've interviewed leave their personal opinions and thoughts out of their blogs. (Some do, and they tend to be either scientists who don't want their opinions to 'muddy' the science, or journalists taking a more 'straight news' approach to blogging about new research). Instead, bloggers see the blog as a 'natural' home for their own personal expertise, experiences and opinions related to science, to a greater or lesser extent. In fact, the 'strength' of blogging is often seen as providing commentary and interpretation often missing from news.

18 out of the 27 bloggers for which I've coded interview transcripts so far have mentioned one of the following content decision codes:

Avoiding 'big', embargoed or press-released studies, in favor less popular or more obscure research papers that still deserve attention

Avoiding stories or topics being covered (*well*) by other bloggers or journalists

Highlighting an area of science that is generally overlooked or underrepresented in popular media

Highlighting stories or research papers that would not otherwise be featured by the mainstream media

Choosing content that is in some way exclusive or unique