• 265 Post
  • 54 Comment
Joined 1Y ago
Cake day: Nov 27, 2020


Main sentence I disagree with “Because scholarly review can deter misconduct, such a mechanism is needed for preprints as well.” …

Wouldn’t it be wonderful when people downvoting posts would explain themselves?

As moderator of this feed, I highly recommend this summit.

And all governments, including the ones that America bullies, are in on it as well as thousands of scientists. Conspiracies of that scale are impossible to pull off. Just like the moon landing. It is easier to land on the moon.

It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck and this virus emerged like any other virus in the past.

Found it and posted it there. Thanks.

I dislike the contrast the author, Lee McIntyre, tries to make between his talking to deniers and the marches for science. They are both valuable, one method will not do the job when it comes to social change.

Lee McIntyre makes the friendly case for asking questions. As a climate scientist I also noticed how effective this is on social media because it makes the deniers do the work, rather than having to type up years of academic eduction. When asking questions it quickly becomes apparent how little they know, which is useful to open minds and useful to see for the audience. (This especially works if you go in depth and stay on topic; deny the person you are talking with the option of changing topics to keep the conversation superficial, sprout a large number of accusations and hope something will stick with the audience.)

The article does a better job in convincing that it works to listen and talk to normal folks who have been conned by the anti-science activists than to show you can reach the worst extremists. Also the settings Lee talks about are rather private. On social media there will be a much larger audience than the person you are talking with, that changes their behavior (makes public change and admission you had a point less likely) and makes it much more valuable to ensure that the audience is helped by the conversation than that the person you are talking with changes their mind.

One could create a part of the fediverse like that for people who just want to chat and make friends.

It would be a poor model for a lot of what I am interested in. I am mostly interested in niche information. One Mastodon account of mine is on translating the scientific literature. Many of the people following Translate Science write in languages I do not master; those are the people who would benefit most from translations. It makes no sense to follow them back.

We could also create a part of the fediverse that is even better at spreading niche information. For example, that would have team accounts so that multiple people can contribute/moderate an information feed.

I started understanding what parasocial relationships mean when I explored Twitch. I am not aware of anything on Mastodon that comes close to that. I do not have the feeling that people feel they are friends of the people behind the largest accounts I know of; but everyone has their own feed.

A diversity of strategies is normally best. The great thing of the Fediverse is that that is possible.

“So, how can we level the playing field? I think the problem is most pronounced with the absolute top-tier journals”.

They won’t solve this, they prefer big names because they are cited more.

At least in the part of science I know almost everyone is an introvert. We could use some extroverts to better communicate with the scary outside world.

Thank you.

A great initiative to start such lists. I wish there was better software to maintain such lists than a GIT repository. For collections of FOSS that works, but there are so many other thing one could make really valuable lists for.

Such things may work when hiring PhD student, but later on you tend to hire people you already know (from earlier collaborations or at leat scientific conferences) or at least their papers. Even in case of PhD students you will want to read their masters thesis and ask their supervisors for advice and it is unavoidable that you learn about where they come from that way.

The idea of DORA is not to fight discrimination, but to make it easier to hire scientists who are good at doing science rather than good at optimizing metrics. If you have no information on the candidate, only some neutral looking metrics, you would do the opposite.

There is a similar conflict between open science and fighting discrimination when it comes to open review. You could fight discrimination by double blind review (where both reviewers and authors are not know to each other), but in case people send their manuscripts to a preprint server and we then do the review in the open, then at least the identities of the authors are known.

I have multiple Mastodon accounts, for myself as human (one in German, one as scientist) and for my projects (grassroots journals, open science feed, …).

Do you think it would be a good idea to make such crossposts explicit as long as Lemmy is not connected to Mastodon yet? So that people can reply and boost at their favorite place?

I agree with the quote, maybe because I somehow personally like methodological questions more than studying nature itself, but we need to do all this fighting for quality because the publish-or-perish system does not reward quality, but quantity.

We assert that a top-down action is needed from journals, universities,
funders and governments to break the cycle and put methodology first.

I assert that the people on the top should help us destroy the destructive micro-managing publish-or-perish system, so that scientists can do science they way they think contributes most to science. They are the experts.

These actions should involve the widespread adoption of registered
reports, balanced research funding between innovative, incremental and
methodological research projects, full recognition and demystification
of peer review, mandatory statistical review of reports, adherence to
reporting guidelines, and investment in methodological education and

Good suggestions.

I thought those two paragraphs are the article. I also do not have access to this journal.

As far as I know this is the only journal with its own Twitter journal club, at least the main one. But there are more, normally local, journal clubs. So the idea could spread, which was why I posted it, hoping to inspire people to pick up this idea.

Yes, that is a wonderful site where the experts summarize their science for an informed public. Strongly recommended. I am climate scientist and many of my Anglo-American colleague regularly write there.

Science communication is important for communication with the public. But many will need the detail that is in the scientific literature.

Maybe you can use Zettlr together with CodiMD/Hedgedoc. Prepare first version in Zettlr, copy the markdown to Hedgedoc, write with your colleagues and copy back to Zettlr to make the final formatted version(s).

My apologies. Some watchful people noticed that collaborative writing is not on the feature list. I asked the developer to be sure, it may be added in future, but is not yet.