Seriously, whenever I bring up some of the actual, real-life, terrible things that have happened because of naive plans to do Open Science without thinking through some of the bad things, I get dismissed, usually because
"Oh that only happens if you have some really malicious, bad actors in science"
I don't know what to tell you
The reason you wanted Open Science in the first place was because not everyone in science can be believed when they say "no it's okay just trust me"
@bgcarlisle (a few disorganized questions)
despite the “now everything’s on fire” problem, do you think the move toward openness is a step along a beneficial path?
or do you think it will just exacerbate the existing issues to such a degree that the potential gains can’t even justify it?
if openness is inevitable, are there things that can be done to mitigate the pains of the transition toward it?
@mood Yeah I wish I could predict with accuracy which parts of Open Science are going to be unadulterated good for humanity and which parts are going to drain resources for entire research programmes, kill patients and potentially fuel pseudoscientific movements
Like, I couldn't have predicted that a far-right group would endorse my own research group's work on providing metrics for e.g. non-publication of science because they thought that it would help them undermine trust in climate science
@mood But there's a few parts where you don't even have to think that hard, and you see "Wow this could very VERY easily be abused"
@mood Actually maybe I did see this sort of thing coming: https://scholar.social/@bgcarlisle/102548697618193420
@bgcarlisle from my extremely-removed position (not producing research or consuming it) it seems analogous to how self-publishing via the internet hastened the rot of news media
- tsunami of successful attacks on truth and reality
- increased polarization and entrenchment
- distrust in anything well-established
i guess i’m wondering if there are any lessons learned that can be applied 🤔 it is, like. THE problem. imho
@bgcarlisle also, every paper that has any kind of statistics, needs to be reviewed by statisticians.
Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully.