and an utterly terrible person. There are tons of these out there (without the open bit), i.e., many great scientists have been extremely
-
-
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.
-
It worries me you wrote community guidelines but don't think we have a community?
- 2 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.