We have a lot of systematic problems in the discipline. I wanted to address your characterization of the projects, which was very unfair for the project leaders. There were also other ways how to find out about the projects (OSF Google group).
-
-
Replying to @djnavarro @BayesForDays
I am never entirely sure on twitter. :) But, I was reading '"old boys' club"' & '"usual suspects" feeling', which seemed unfair to me given the inclusivity of the projects – I was helping with parts of RP:P while still doing my master's degree with zero connections in the field.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Regarding inclusivity of twitter and fb – I don't think they are ideal, but usual communication channels, for which you have to pay (conferences, society mailing lists), are much worse.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @djnavarro @bahniks and
I dunno what your exact angle is here, Stepan — but the fact that science is structured hierarchically, forming a pyramid, and (as Danielle has said) certain ppl are powerful/at the top (an obvious byproduct of the previous point) is not in any way a controversial/rare opinion.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @djnavarro and
No "angle" there. The thread mentioned "many labs" style projects and a reply was that they are very much like old boys' club. I mentioned a bunch of projects, which were all inclusive. Yes, science is structured hierarchically, it is a problem, but I did not speak about that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
As far as fb/twitter and usual communication channels are a problem, maybe something like
@manylab (https://osf.io/89vqh/ ) could help. Unfortunately, it is not used that much right now, but it could be a place which would ovecome the mentioned problems.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think you are being disingenuous. Are the manylabs projects not part of science?
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.