In some cases personal confrontation and making misbehavior known in the field works to keep individuals in check, in other cases not.
-
-
Replying to @DennisEckmeier @pvanheus and
I don't think there is an optimal solution, especially if we continue to allow enormous power differences between researchers.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Thanks. Yes this is the heart of the problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pvanheus @DennisEckmeier and
Women consistently are listened to less than men and not taken as seriously. The case you gave above means sometimes you will be respected
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I worry about cases without any blinding in which biases are consistent against certain groups, e.g., women.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
that was the start of the thread I think (I agree)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cshperspectives @pvanheus and
Sorry I missed it! Where any solutions proposed? [Will try to find start of thread which talks about this.]
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @cshperspectives and
I guess, the best we can do is to allow the whole field to witness and comment the review process, and have more reviewers per manuscript.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DennisEckmeier @o_guest and
whether anybody should be anonymous, is to be determined, I think.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DennisEckmeier @cshperspectives and
My only issue is that the whole field is aware and doesn't (except in very specific cases) cases intend to exclude women and minorities and
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
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
-
-
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.