You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I appreciate the explicit acknowledgements of limitations of the article's metric. But shouldn't that give you pause in using such a strong title? Such a complex question such as this simply cannot be boiled down into looking at such a simple metric with so many possible biases.
There are many measures considered (age, team size, the survey results, and, ancillary, productivity growth). And, of course, they're all being compared to input measures ($, number of scientists, number of papers). No matter which pair you consider, you see dim. rets.
As is common in this kind of writing, we weren't directly consulted on the title or subtitle. But I think the title is reasonable. We're not _certain_. But we think the evidence is strong enough it should be seriously considered.
Ah I see! Just concerned that people see titles like these (without reading the article) and use it as an argument against science, especially in a time/political environment where science is often being assaulted as useless (e.g., climate change research).
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
