so it would have been the clients that would have needed convincing :) 2/2
-
-
Replying to @ivanoransky
You'd either not cover Science/Nature/NEJM/Lancet papers or be hours or days later than AP. Not a winning product for clients.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt @ivanoransky
Boycotts only effective if (almost) everyone boycotts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt
Again, a longer discussion than 140 chars. Some of this is about breaking out of study of the week. Leave a comment on EW!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ivanoransky
Hah, we've been talking for decades about breaking out of study of the week.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt
And we've had
@EurekAlert for two decades. I wouldn't presume correlation = causation. But...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ivanoransky
Also correlates with how long we've been in this biz.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt @ivanoransky
Pre-pub bio & medicine, if adopted by scientists, is more likely way to break emb & study of week than boycott, no?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OranGang @ivanoransky
Yeah, if scientists all boycott Nature and Science, we're all good. (Not gonna happen.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt @ivanoransky
that's true. But, is pre-pub interpreted as violation of Inglefinger?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
posting preprints is ok. talking to journalists is not.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.