the irony of this position is it sounds a lot like the one people use to argue against preprints and PPPR: "there is a system for peer review, and it works. people shouldn't be able to unilaterally circumvent that with open reviews."
-
-
Replying to @talyarkoni @vishnusreekr and
I don't think the system works. I think it's biased.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @talyarkoni and
In fact my opinion is that this blog post highlights exactly how all these systems don't work and that the only way to be constructive is to be actually open. Context is easily lost online (context collapse) and this was a good example to show that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @talyarkoni and
Certain media and timings promote more or less context information. A model like eLife's is pretty good. Ultimately, the point is that people will game the system no matter what, but a better system is possible, e.g., eLife.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @talyarkoni and
It's ironic you think that I and
@ProfData who publish preprints are/can be against preprints because we pointed out how systems which contain them can be biased. Such criticism is exactly what is useful for progress.1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @vishnusreekr and
that was meant as a reductio ad absurdum. you *say* you want openness, but you're actually arguing for a (different kind of) gatekeeping model
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @talyarkoni @o_guest and
open means you make things available, and people can comment on them and use them however they like. it doesn't mean "it's a preprint, but you still need to leave your comments on the same page as the original, and you can only post at certain times that are convenient for me"
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @talyarkoni @vishnusreekr and
I'm not arguing for something prescriptive like you claim. I'm giving my opinion on something that happened, proposing why it went the way it did.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @talyarkoni and
You put words in quotes as if I said them (I haven't), assume I've a prescriptive outlook (nope), but you don't understand my perspective (you said it yourself). TBH we can't disagree when you think I'm coming from an authoritative/normative perspective...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @talyarkoni and
I know what many in the specific psychology/neuroscience community think about open science. And yes, we do disagree, esp on issues of power dynamics. I'm for open science, but I've expressed on Twitter very often disagreement with their specific ideology within open science.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I have zero interest going over it again because it's always the same pattern of themes and counte-themes. My tweets on this issue, of how open science could be done to be (in my opinion) more open, are out there and Twitter has an advanced search feature if you're interested.
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.