This thread is going to be a plea for nuance and civility in open access/science discussions. I do this, realizing that Twitter rewards and pushes for extremes, hyperbole, provocation.
I know this is an uphill battle, but please bear with with me. 1/
I know this is an uphill battle, but please bear with with me. 1/
If you want to say "science is broken", pause and ask yourself, "is it?" There's daily progress w/ new discoveries, treatments, etc.
Millions of hard-working scientists are doing their best; don't dismiss their efforts.
Instead consider, "Science works but can work better." 2/
Millions of hard-working scientists are doing their best; don't dismiss their efforts.
Instead consider, "Science works but can work better." 2/
If you want to say, "publishing is an evil scam", don't. Think of the thousands of your colleagues, doing their best to facilitate sharing of results.
Consider, "Science publishing works, but there is lots of inefficiency; it can be cheaper, open, more transparent..." 3/
Consider, "Science publishing works, but there is lots of inefficiency; it can be cheaper, open, more transparent..." 3/
You may be temped to tweet, "If you're publishing subscriptions, you don't care about science/society!" Don't.
Think of the student in a lab arguing for PLOS Biology, but the PI insisting on Cell. Think of the lab that can't afford APCs.
Advocate for OA w/out shaming. 4/
Think of the student in a lab arguing for PLOS Biology, but the PI insisting on Cell. Think of the lab that can't afford APCs.
Advocate for OA w/out shaming. 4/
"We have a reproducibility crisis!!!!!" We do? How do you know that?
Was science more or less reproducible 30 years ago? Maybe it's better today?
Again, consider, "Science works but can work better. We have tools/tech to be more rigorous/reliable." 5/
Was science more or less reproducible 30 years ago? Maybe it's better today?
Again, consider, "Science works but can work better. We have tools/tech to be more rigorous/reliable." 5/
"We're failing the public! We need to restore trust in science!" Actually, trust in science has been steady for decades pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017….
Consider, "By opening peer review/code/data we can accelerate science and possibly increase public trust in it." 6/
Consider, "By opening peer review/code/data we can accelerate science and possibly increase public trust in it." 6/
I can keep going, but I think the template is clear. My main advice, before sending the tweet, think "Is this generalization true or a hyperbole?" "Who are my colleagues that will be hurt and offended by this?" "Does everyone have my resources and privilege?" 7/
Finally - I'm no saint. I'm sure my blogging and twitter history is full of insensitive and provocative statements. As I said, everything about the internet pushes towards extremes.
Measured nuance gets less visibility. Still, as scientists, we must aim for it. 8/8
Measured nuance gets less visibility. Still, as scientists, we must aim for it. 8/8
Plus this!
