Also, I'm aware of many cases where reviewer anonymity is not respected. Meaning that people tell each other who reviewed whom...
-
-
Agreed. "The whole field" reflects oppression prevalent in society. I like that this is being discussed though e.g. https://chairs-blog.acl2017.org/2017/02/19/arxiv-and-the-future-of-double-blind-conference-reviewing/ …
-
I would go further and warn that open science could actually be — it's poss! — more oppressive than society.https://www.wired.com/2017/06/diversity-open-source-even-worse-tech-overall/ …
-
Better to act to make stuff as good as we can, by listening to ECRs and URMs amongst other things, before shit like the above hits the fan.
-
Open Source is unmoderated?
-
See relevant discussion here if you missed it BTW:https://twitter.com/ctitusbrown/status/877535335609016321 …
-
Wow
@o_guest so many good threads lately, most intersecting your Twitter. Have you saved them somehow? What's the best way to do that?? -
Peter — I wish! I have no fucking clue what to do. Twitter should have nested threads but they prefer to be shit at everything instead.

-
storify works well for me to remember some of these threads (and curatable) e.g. https://storify.com/cshperspectives/citing-preprints-in-reference-lists …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
yet still URMs are URMs for a reason. I feel in many cases it's going to be just as bad as open source which has worse representation than
-
tech more broadly.
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.