There's a bit of a storm happening around the criteria for joining http://fediscience.org - the Mastodon instance for scientists, on which I'm hosted.
It's been noted that the requirement to be a publishing scientist (who has published in the past 5 years) will exclude many junior scientists, retired sciences, and those who have maybe switched to teaching.
I agree with these concerns and wonder if the criteria can be changed to be more inclusive?
@pwgtennant Had missed your post.
PhD students are working on publications; they are publishing scientists. We have also accepted master students working on their thesis; a thesis is a publication. We do not care whether the publication is peer reviewed, a preprint/book is fine.
Publishing is a somewhat intermittent activity. I feel that around five years is quite generous for the question whether publishing is ongoing. If someone claims to be working on a future publication, they are in. 1/3
@pwgtennant The way the Fediverse works, no one is excluded by not being on a particular server. All science and generic servers talk with each other. There is also a server for journalists, political parties have servers, the German government, ...
We have started FediScience because we see Mastodon as a great example of how Open Science infrastructure should work, hope it will be part of a larger distributed, interoperable, egalitarian OS ecosystem and inspire building the other parts. 2/3
@pwgtennant We have invested our free time to help build such an ecosystem and to make it easier for scientists to organize ourselves. I would not have done so for a generic Mastodon server; there are already many of them. Also being a server with scientists may make it easier to obtain support by science foundations, which I personally prefer over asking for donations.
We interpret the term publishing scientist liberally and are happy to discuss constructive ideas for a better definition. 3/3
@VictorVenema thanks very much for your reply. And thanks to both of you for establishing the server and making a place that many scientists have selected to join! I realise there must be a lot of work involved, particularly over the past few weeks with the inundation of sign ups.
@VictorVenema I think there are problems with the current eligibility criteria and have heard from many folk who have said they were put off from applying to join. I would personally prefer the criteria was widened because I don't see proof of publishing as a selecting feature of being a scientist. But that's your choice really. I agree that one good feature of the fediverse model is that it allows others to set up alternative instances with different eligibility criteria.
So instead of discussing *about* you over on the birdsite, it seems only fair to engage *with* you over here 😜.
First, thank you for hosting a server, and for investing in developing your instance. It's impressive to see how so many servers are responding positively to the great Birdsite migration.
Science, and science publishing, has a long history of ivory towers and gatekeeping. It's not always intentional. I'm pretty sure the admins of this instance have no truck with any form of discrimination (it's front and centre in the server rules. Number 1!)
The criterion of 'please give your publishing history' means that the instance will implicitly reflect discrimination in science publishing. Which is well documented[1]. A classic example of Unconscious Bias. I've seen the argument that what can you do apart from be a passive mirror to the scientific publishing world. I would argue that these days that is not an acceptable position. You either work to support access to our field, or you implicitly support the status quo. I think instances like fediscience can be a formidable tool to promote representation and participation in the scientific discourse.
It is easy to throw stones from the side, I know. But I think a more equitable approach is that which you had previously, a kind of statement of motivation as to why you would want to join this instance. What research do you do, do you want to do etc.
That is certainly harder to automate, I understand that too. The solution then would be to expand the moderation team. In order to keep things people centred, my opinion, is that people need to remain involved.
I appreciate also that the instance handle is not the be all and end all... I can (and do!) interact across the fediverse... there seem to be plenty that don't really grok that right now. But server identity reflects a large part of online identity. I guess that may be part of the reason you set a server up in the first place.
This feedback is meant earnestly. I'm not trying to be Reviewer #3. I wish you luck in the future and look forward to future interactions! I think you will need it!
Anyway, that's my 2¢.
@Ed_Rial The criterion has been publishing scientist from the start. We have only updated the description on the signup page to make clearer how one could demonstrate this because we got so many unclear signups and had to write so many emails asking for clarifications.
Nothing is automated. If people would write a description of their scientific work and end it with that they will write that up in a publication, they will be accepted. Did you see this reply? https://fediscience.org/@VictorVenema/109343451219977962
@pwgtennant
@Ed_Rial In case you do not know your own server: it federates with any kind of Nazi filth and is thus blocked by scholar.social because they do not want to expose their people to Qoto. The way the admin "debates" reminds me of debating far-right climate deniers.
There clearly is a lot of racism in academia. I moderate the Open Science Feed and my posts about diversity are the only ones that are downvoted on Reddit.
@VictorVenema @Ed_Rial @pwgtennant Can I ask how well this ‘published scientists only’ approach is working out? There are some disciplines (e.g. Eugenics) where publications are prolific AND still connected to nazi ideology. Have you excluded any of those ‘scientists’ with this method?
On an unrelated point, which science foundations fund FediScience?
@VictorVenema @pwgtennant thanks for the heads up on qoto. I am newish to Mastodon, and I had been alerted that qoto was on various block lists. You're the first to let me know the explicit reason. Thank you. I am on the lookout for a new home, but there's a lot of demand right now... I will check out your related instances.
Thanks for the clarification about 'seeking to publish'. I think that, for me, is where some confusion lies when it looked like an existing publications list was a compulsory field on sign up. It gave the impression you already had to be in the ivory tower before you could join this instance...
@Ed_Rial We will clarify the text on our about page, which is already explains things a bit better than the sign-up page. We also did not write anything there about initiatives/projects by scientists, which are also welcome.
Thanks for being open to a conversation and asking first. I will be so glad when Twitter is dead. It is such a toxic place responsible for so much of the shift to the far right we have seen this decade.
@VictorVenema @pwgtennant thank you for being open to discussion.
@Ed_Rial @VictorVenema thank you very much for writing and sharing this. I think your words reflect my concerns very closely.