So, inspired by @chrisdc77 I've now thoroughly unclenched my own arse over this issue: http://wp.me/p5UOkc-2qx "Is open science tone deaf?"
-
-
Another question is whether we should worry about it. I suspect the in-group aspect has marginal effects compared to changing incentives.
-
Well, insisting we're not a movement = rhetorical play that has been used in and by other groups to sidestep criticism. I've seen it before.
-
See, I think it's exactly the opposite: It actually prevents others from becoming part of it & spreading the virus to all of science (1/3)
-
I also never claimed there was no movement. The point is being open doesn't require being part of "the movement," nor should it. (2/3)
-
And finally, I explicitly said that science has a diversity problem. That needs to change regardless of how open or closed science is. (3/3)
-
It does need to change, yes. One of the core tenets of
#openscience is diversity and inclusivity. -
"Core tenets" sounds like a lot like a religion :P - I think it's about changing your science practices. Diversity is issue in its own right
-
What word do you prefer for the things under the umbrella?https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/889248986984591362 …
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
If we change incentives at journals & granting agencies it is only a matter of time until hiring and promotion changes too.
-
And we can start changing hiring practices right now. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ty43Syw0Flkh8ncjW8MZArIkvYe8hLwwhLlIwbtSk_Y/edit … A proposal that
@nicebread303 and I have put together.
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.


