Thread by @GordPennycook

Thought I would share the backstory behind this one, which I think is interesting. Pertains to open science... and also open-*minded* science. (See what I did there)

A thread

https://twitter.com/wimdeneys/status/1159830653417873413

Wim's work was absolutely seminal to my initiation into the field. My first ever experiment (an undergrad research course) was an extension of his 2008 Cognition paper.

I was (still am) a very big fan.

BUT, my master's work ended up being quite critical of some of his claims..

We submitted it to Cognition & Wim reviewed it somewhat harshly, but also fairly. And I know it was him because he *signs his reviews* (here's the open science part)

We had opportunity to improve our paper and it was ultimately published. (If u r curious sciencedirect.com/science/articl…)

So, I came away thinking that he was reasonable. But, perhaps given my naivete, had also assumed he might hate my guts.

I then met him at a conference and I discovered that he's also very nice.

So, reasonable and nice. But definitely disagrees with me and maybe hates my guts

But here comes the open-minded part: We continued doing independent research and, as the data came in, our theoretical disagreement began to evaporate. This is a testament mostly to Wim who *took seriously* what I had to say even though I was a mere grad student

He was also a reviewer on a capstone paper that ended up being my dissertation, by which time he was an advocate (but still critical and who greatly helped us to improve/clarify)!

And now, despite our original disagreement, we've published a paper together!

And largely because he was *open* (and reasonable) with his criticism. What he doesn't know is that his conduct taught me how to be a better, more open, & more reasonable scientist

So, cheers to all those informal mentors out there who make our science better! And who also make our lives as scientists better, too