I think @tage_rai has made good points here about money and bias in the open science movement, and got a lot of hostile pile on this weekend. But in fairness I think it's also important to not lose some of the more principled concerns I saw some people raise.
A great thing about a powerful editor speaking freely on Twitter is that it creates some transparency. And many (like me) are happy to see some changes: openness to accepting papers that have already circulated/gotten media coverage, and plain speaking on bias in the profession.
On the open science question, looming in the background (for me) is that for a long time (before @tage_rai, before Gilbert) top journals (Science included) have had a reputation for sensation-seeking.
I'd love to be pointed to the hard numbers, but my guess is that null results are rare in these outlets, and significance hunting and rewarding remains rampant. I see an ongoing problem of incentives in the profession, and my hope is that journals play a leadership role fixing it
Whatever the money or bias problems the open science movement might have (I didn't know about these before this weekend) there's also a glaring and blatant problem of publication bias and significance hunting that people perceive as top science journals helping to perpetuate.
I know that I for one would feel more optimistic if there was evident passion for, and a plan, for tackling these problems in the world's flagship scientific journal. Maybe this is out there, and maybe it got mentioned in the flurry this weekend, but it did not come to the fore.
Like ending the press release fetish, and reducing bias in the profession, I think tackling publication bias is key. I don't say this because I'm an open science person. I'm not really. I've fallen on both sides of the transparency debates over the years.
Rather, if you asked me at any time in the last 15y what I thought about Science as a journal, I would have said that it has a reputation for publishing what's sexy not what's most important or correct. That's a big problem, and I think it underlies some of the Twitter anxiety.
Anyways--I hope no one reads this thread as being accusatory or judgmental of anyone in this debate. I have surely gotten many things wrong above. I just wanted to start a thread on the constructive bits of the discussion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I checked in on a friend the other day to see how he was doing. He’s not Israeli, but like many Jewish Americans he has close friends & family who are near the attacks or being called up to fight. He’s worried & mourning & also a little demoralized. He said something powerful.
What’s so disconcerting, he said, is that here are a set of truly heinous acts by Hamas. Why isn’t there universal condemnation, without qualification?
When others are terrorized, the world seems quicker to sympathize. How can Jews like him not feel somewhat abandoned?
I too was surprised by the tone & vehemence of some reactions on the left. To me it’s like 2015, when I was surprised just how many Americans still held white nationalist views. We all knew those extreme & hateful opinions were there. We just didn’t realize how many there were.
Just hired a 21yo for their first job. What basic professional advice do they need? Here's what I tell all my new staff, but perhaps you can add. I'll start small.
1/ Use an online calendar. Have a foolproof system of reminders, so you never forget a deadline or obligation.
2/ Use the calendar to schedule intensive work time, not just meetings. Some kinds of work (like research or coding or writing) benefits from long, uninterrupted blocks of time. Most people schedule meetings only, and don't schedule these long blocks. Do both.
3/ Organize your contacts. Make a habit of saving everyone's names, emails and other contact info in a way that syncs across your devices. Keep notes of key info, like birthdays and the names of spouses and children.
An unexpected joy of being at the @BeckerFriedman political economy conference in Paris is having @k_sonin give us a real-time paper presentation on events as they evolve in the previous 24h. Will try to capture some of the main points.
Forgive me in advance for all the ways I will misunderstand and misquote Kostyra
Prigozhin, he reminds us, is not autonomous but is essentially a branch of Russian military and intelligence
Looking for alternatives to policing? So was the mayor of Medellin. In 2018, we worked with his govt to choose 80 neighborhoods. In half, the city intensified civilian staff and problem-solving 10-fold, for 2 years. The results were... unexpected.
In Colombia, Mayors have limited control of police. A national institution, they report to the Minister of Defense. Cities can't grow their forces. So, cities build Secretariats of Security—civilian bureaucracies that solve disputes & try to keep order in neighborhoods.
The 40 sectors were ~10 blocks large, with ~2000 people. Each got a full-time "liaison" for 2y—a city worker who would help community groups organize, connect people to city services, refer disputes to resolution officers and family services, & facilitate local police relations.
300 people committed most of the shoplifting in a city of 9 million. A useful reminder that most crime & violence is committed by a tiny number of people, and that nearly every effective social or policing problem has to be hyper targeted or it will fail. nytimes.com/2023/04/15/nyr…
American cities need to fix poverty, policing, and a long list of other issues. That will take decades. Finding and intervening with 300 people is much different, much easier, and could be done this year if a mayor had the motive and the right team.
It’s even true for murder. Here’s the randomized trial.
Here's the story of a city's response to spiking gun deaths. Of READI Chicago—an ambitious effort to build & study a program of jobs & CBT for the men most likely to shoot or be shot. Of HUGE success by some measures (64% fewer shooting & homicide arrests!) & no impact by others.
I'd love to tell you "we have the answer!" but, like most urban problems, gun violence is messy & hard to solve. So settle in for a more nuanced story than usual, yet one that ends with a clear message: helping men who shoot (& get shot) is possible, essential, and works.
If you just want the academic paper or policy note, both dropped this week. Here are links. The research team is me, @MonicaPBhatt, Sara Heller, Max Kapustin, Marianne Bertrand + a huge team @UChiUrbanLabs