Academic colleagues, @LivUni are targeting 47 colleagues with redundancy, after an abrupt, non-consultative and opaque review which uses weaponised grant income and citation metrics. Please sign and share this open letter to protest docs.google.com/document/d/1OJ…#LiverpoolRedundancies
This is despicable action, devastating for those targeted, but also an insult to all @LivUni staff, who have worked harder than ever during a pandemic, to see the callous regard their employer has for them #LiverpoolRedundenciesdocs.google.com/document/d/1OJ…
Liverpool's redundancy project is also a threat to a healthy UK research culture. We all know how fickle these metrics can be, how much of value they ignore. Firing staff with good appraisals based on narrow metrics is a destructive, terrible, precedent docs.google.com/document/d/1OJ…
Students and teachers should also be mad as hell about these redundancies. What do we think will happen to the student experience if staff fear for their jobs, and know the only way to keep them is to satisfy the angry gods of research measurement? #LiverpoolRedundancies
The actions of @LivUni threaten research reliability everywhere, they threaten teaching and the idea of the University everywhere. It is not too late for them to change course - please join me in calling on them to do so #LiverpoolRedundanciesdocs.google.com/document/d/1OJ…
As well as signing the letter, here's how you could help 1. Send it by email to your departments, collaborators, networks 2. If you work with @LivUni write to them and let them know how you feel
...
3. Get in touch with organisations who should care about this: funders, student societies, scholarly societies and professional organisations. They should state a position on this, Liverpool's actions set a dangerous precedent
The most recent 3 signatures on this are from Norway, Japan, Ireland - scholars around the world recognise the insult these plans are to academic life everywhere #liverpoolredundanciesdocs.google.com/document/d/1OJ…
I have now formally presented this open letter, with over 2000 signatories from academics around the world, to the VC and senior leadership of @LivUni, requesting an urgent response. You can download a PDF of the letter at the point of sending here tomstafford.staff.shef.ac.uk/docs/liverpool…
My slides are here tomstafford.staff.shef.ac.uk/talks/ the highlight is the slide which combines reference to statistical theory, Jorge Luis Borges and a certain classic Jim Henson movie from the 1980s
really interesting reflections from Pamela Abbot and Andrew Cox @SheffMetaNet Launch. Summarised in their paper "Librarians’ perceptions of the challenges for researchers in Rwanda and the potential of open scholarship" eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/164115/
1. Bitcoin is destroying the planet 2. Reviewing papers is unrecognised and unrewarded
So (and hear me out here) 3. We invent a new cryptocurrency which you 'mine' by contributing quality reviews of the literature
APCs for journal articles are replaced with KudosCoin fees, which you can either generate by reviewing or buy off people who do
The thought being that escape from both the tyranny of metrics and the prestige economy - whether impact factors or Instagram likes - is impossible, so we should at least ground it on the true basis of scholarly life, the gold standard of peer review
Love this analysis of vulnerabilities to Wikipedia's knowledge integrity from this paper: arxiv.org/abs/1910.12596
.@mad_astronaut using ML to predict when people click on citations (admittedly, mostly they don't but when they do)
- recent info
- open info
- personal info
Interested in the phenomenology of why some students find turning their video on in seminars so aversive. Any thoughts? If this is you, can you describe why to me in a way I'll get?
Is it related to the way some (mostly younger?) people find answering phone calls unbearable?
Many interesting replies to this - for which thanks. I hear lots of *reasons* why students may keep camera off, but I am specifically interested in the *feelings* that someone has when they are motivated by these reasons, whatever they are
Part of their "night science" project ("exciting and significant parts of scientific research that occur behind the scenes") biomedcentral.com/collections/ni…
Why would you be driven to make baseless claims about election fraud? it seems so norm-eroding, so dangerous a precedent to set - knocking out the epistemic ladder up which we climb to democracy, leaving a future in which legitimacy can't exist.
Presumably (1) you would only do so if you felt that the threat posed by losing the election was as large as the threat of the collapse of legitimate government anyway (i.e. if you were really desperate) but also ...
...(2)Do accusations of electoral fraud betray a lack of faith in the rationality of voters: "Reasonable people couldn't vote for the opposition, so those votes must be fraudulent"? In this way calls of electoral fraud are the right's Cambridge Analytica