1st, being a bad person doesn't have any bearing on how open or closed your research is. Of course you can be the best most open scientist
-
-
I would like such norms, especially relating to behaviour and ethics of data use and reuse to me made explicit (not set in stone!) so we can
-
have meaningful conversations about them and so we can say "X violated this rule" and so we can say "is rule 8243 a good rule or shall we
-
change it" and so on.
-
I think this should clarify my thoughts — pls feel free to ask me more. I've a feeling u misunderstood (prob my fault) — hope this helps.
-
I think a lot of what you have in mind is already spelled out in ethics codes (sth
@eplebel & I pointed out here https://proveyourselfwrong.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/need-for-new-code-of-ethics-compliance-for-professional-researchers-in-era-of-hyper-competitive-high-stake-academic-culture/ …) -
> and we're just not aware of them/ignore them. We may disagree on the specifics of what should and should not be an explicit rule, but >
-
>overall your last tweets didn't sound like our positions are that far apart. What my thread referred to was your demand "open science ppl">
-
> should distance themselves from Kirkegaard, implying a responsibility to do so. I simply don't see that responsibility.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Probl is not so easy. In many areas data is close to noise so you are getting away for years till somebody does a funnel plot. Hmm...
-
I meant more along the lines of if you go to work and tell everybody to fuck off very eloquently ala Malcolm Tucker you prob will get fired.
End of conversation
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.