Who thinks it is an excuse? I haven't seen anyone say that
-
-
It's almost like a lot of these people think open science means just putting your data and code online.

-
But open means, or at least could mean, so so so much more. Science is for everybody.
-
I'm so glad so many people agree even in relative silence (via likes and RTs etc) on this issue.
-
Otherwise I think OS might be doomed to be a replication of the current system, which is closed in more ways than just code and data.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I had the opposite experience to be honest. I was welcomed on board a new open journal by
@RickCarlsson who didn't even know me -
Mainly, I understand, because they needed the diversity - but hey, I'll take it - I know I can do the job well and they won't regret it :P
-
We recruited to the editorial board in two waves. 1st too homogenous, gender and competence. 2 wave focused on what we didn't get first. >
-
> the harsh reality is that we cannot get diverse groups without focusing recruitment. Social networks are too biased for this to work. >
-
> ethnic and gender discrimination was my main field, before I went open science nerd. I don't think *implicit* bias is so important >
-
The problem is not implicit bias per se, IMHO, but the basic fact URMs and ECRs need to be welcomed. Most of the active os people are men?
-
And established men too.
-
And, yes, this is utterly a function of the state of society in general. But like you mentioned, stuff can be done, like hiring
@doctorwhy!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This reminds me of the debate in atheism/humanism between the progressives and the libertarians, e.g. "should atheists be feminists?"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
