It's part of a series of things people have said with very extreme views. Otherwise why do you think @bradpwyble and @micahgallen think what we think?
-
-
I find it very amusing you think I'm arguing in bad faith but can't ascribe a motive. Bad faith REQUIRES a motive. What is my motive? https://twitter.com/Ben_C_J/status/1065175996549267456 …
This Tweet is unavailable. -
From the first tweet in the thread you highlighted: “Journals are now exclusively for registered reports, everything else is published as preprint” That couldn’t be clearer that published includes preprint (it literally says ‘published as preprint’).
-
I’m glad you’re amused, but I’m not going to publicly speculate about why you are still arguing this point when it’s been clarified repeatedly. Going to stick you on mute, I’m afraid, because you are clearly not interested in having a productive discussion.
-
I was expecting a block or mute, should have preregistered it. In my opinion the misunderstandings are not based on those words you isolated. It’s based on the fact you all have no clue about our modeling work and have no understanding even though we are in the same field as you.
-
I think the reason you think we think you are demanding all work to be confirmatory is because some of you have authored pubs on exactly that. I don't think you all want confirmatory research, but I realise what you and others are doing...
-
-
over matters that lack substance, serving as a perfect excuse for petty skirmishes and for bullying other scientists.
-
If the open science movement wishes to convince the community, beyond exerting its lobbying, which it certainly has, then intimidation attitudes should be controlled from within.
- 25 more replies
New conversation -
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.
