In the name of transparency, let's have a look at these "transparency audits". Is it legit? Who's running it? Who's advising, and how? What are they doing?
tl-dr: it looks to be a rogue operation with an in-name only advisory board, and some questionable / shady tactics.
🧵
tl-dr: it looks to be a rogue operation with an in-name only advisory board, and some questionable / shady tactics.
🧵
https://twitter.com/curatescience/status/1371927234899017731
Who seems to run @curatescience, and on what authority? The leader is listed as Etienne P. Lebel (@eplebel). Has done work in open science before.
What authority does this entity have?
Self-professedly: none, in particular. They state they operate as a non-profit.
What authority does this entity have?
Self-professedly: none, in particular. They state they operate as a non-profit.
What about their advisory board? It looks quite respectable!
However - as far as I can tell, precious few of them actually advised or approved of this project. Evidence of such in the next couple tweets.
However - as far as I can tell, precious few of them actually advised or approved of this project. Evidence of such in the next couple tweets.
Wolf Vanpaemel - listed in the main team as "conceptual advisor" - who apparently is not involved....
Multiple tweets in picture - link to tweets:
Multiple tweets in picture - link to tweets:
https://twitter.com/wolfvanpaemel/status/1372131882528337921
Listed advisors: Alex Holcombe, Dorothy Bishop, and EJ Wagenmakers, and Julia Rohrer all appear to have been unaware of this particular program, and are not necessarily on board. One of them has even previously asked to be removed from the board.
There are a couple listed advisors who appear to have at least tacitly endorsed the idea (retweeted, for example), but their involvement is unclear.
This feels to me like *at least* an inflated advisory board, used to lend credibility and imply approval where it does not exist.
This feels to me like *at least* an inflated advisory board, used to lend credibility and imply approval where it does not exist.
It looks to be fairly specifically Etienne Lepel running this.
Who's he? Obviously limited - but what about a quick look at a recent tweet. Oh.
Look, all possible debates about economic system's aside, this seems to me to be... not a very valid point.
Who's he? Obviously limited - but what about a quick look at a recent tweet. Oh.
Look, all possible debates about economic system's aside, this seems to me to be... not a very valid point.
https://twitter.com/eplebel/status/1365331351470235650
And what are they actually doing?
In the middle of a pandemic, they are coercing academics to bend to their will to do extra work to be scored onto their leader board
In the middle of a pandemic, they are coercing academics to bend to their will to do extra work to be scored onto their leader board
https://twitter.com/SimoneSchnall/status/1372574478148964354
MANY other criticisms of their approach (coerced audits, Goodhart's law, science-as-a-competition, cost & accessbility of open-access), are in lots of other tweets.
For me, suffice to say - I value transparency & open-science, and find this approach extremely lacking.
For me, suffice to say - I value transparency & open-science, and find this approach extremely lacking.
It feels relevant to me to note that by vast majority (even if one takes the advisory board as legit) - it is very white, and very European. The core team seems to be all male.
It's not very representative of the group of scientists they seem to claim audit-powers over.
It's not very representative of the group of scientists they seem to claim audit-powers over.
The more I look into Curate Science the more it appears to be a rogue operation of a self-appointed individual or small group who are bulldozing through bad plans, with an in-name-only advisory board to give legitimacy, run by a questionable individual, and with no oversight.
Anyways, I feel down the tweet rabbit hole on this, and though I would share because, well, I quite value transparency.
/end.
/end.
Addendum - I'm not the only person to point out the representation of the Curate Science team. This rather sickening response from their account makes it pretty clear they don't get it, are not at all listening or acting in good faith, and should not be given any leeway here.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
