Paweł Lenartowicz @plenartowicz@qoto.org

Metascience is often defined as the scientific investigation of science itself with the aim to improve science. This ‘improving’ part of metascience has been called a reform movement. While the intention to improve science is generally laudable, metascience and the associated movement(s) are not without their critics. The metascience reform movement has for instance been characterized as among other things, neoliberal, positivistic, atheoretical, technological, moralizing, bureaucratic, homogenizing, mechanistic, quantitative, psychological (psychologizing), social, civilizing, bullying, exclusive, coercive, activist, and normative. In this symposium some of those critical perspectives will be presented and discussed.

What's Changed Normalize attributes that can have mixed value types by @pfefferle in #586 some phpcs fixes by @pfefferle in #590 WebFinger: Add support for URLs by @pfefferle in #594 Remove deprec...

Abstract. Wikipedia is one of the most successful collaborative projects in history. It is the largest encyclopedia ever created, with millions of users worldwi

To the Board of Directors, eLife and Erin O’Shea, President, HHMI: We, the undersigned life scientists, are writing to express our view that Professor Michael Eisen's social media posts should not be grounds for removing him as eLife editor or otherwise censuring him by HHMI. Eisen posted on twitter an article in The Onion satirizing the view that people should not be allowed to criticize Israeli actions until they first criticize Hamas. Our opinion is not based on the merits (or lack thereof) of Eisen’s views. Rather, we believe that censuring Eisen would create a chilling effect on freedom of expression in academia. To be clear, there are contexts in which it may be entirely appropriate to remove people from positions of leadership for their views -- even when those views are expressed in their role as private individuals and are otherwise within the bounds of the law. We can think of at least three such contexts. One is when a leader’s views are antithetical to the value or mission of the organization (e.g., thus a gun control lobby might remove a spokesperson who conveyed support for the NRA, and the NRA might remove someone who advocated for gun control). Another instance is when the leaders’ views reflect poorly on their professionalism or undermine their ability to do their job effectively. This is the case when the views suggest ignorance or poor judgment on issues that ought to be within their professional purview, or are explicitly disrespectful of superiors, colleagues or subordinates within an organization. A final context is when the views are hate speech: abusive and pejorative language based on people's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. In short, we believe that organizations have broad license to ensure that the professional and social mission of their institution is not undermined by individuals who are the public face of that organization. It is another matter entirely when individuals might be removed for positions of leadership for expressing views that are a) independent of the mission or values of the organization; b) play no role in the individual's area of professional expertise; c) do not cast doubt on their professional qualifications; d) do not bad mouth other individuals in their organization, and e) are not hate speech. This is the context in which Michael Eisen may be asked to step down from his editorial position. This possibility is aligned with a culture of fear, intolerance and political repression. The spectre of losing positions of authority for questioning government policies has no place in a democracy, let alone within academia. This is especially egregious in this instance because the threat to remove Eisen from his role is directly contrary to the mission and values of both eLife and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (a funder and founding member of the journal). The journal eLife is "committed to create a future where a diverse, global community of scientists and researchers shares open and trusted results for the benefit of the greater good" and HHMI writes in its mission statement: "We embed equity and inclusion into our vision of scientific excellence". It should go without saying that forcing scientists out of leadership positions because they express opposition to government policies is not equitable, inclusive, committed to a diverse, global community, or in the interest of the greater good. It's already apparent that a move to displace Eisen from his role will have ramifications beyond eLife and HHMI. Many of us have received private communications from graduate students, postdocs, and faculty members working at institutions in the USA describing the vulnerability they feel either because they support Palestinian human rights, or because of their Middle Eastern ethnic backgrounds. Many of them have mentioned the backlash against Eisen as a primary reason for their fears. For example, one trainee wrote: “after seeing what happened to Michael Eisen I am extremely worried about my career trajectory and future in the United States...I don’t feel safe as a Middle Eastern neuroscientist in the United States.” An Iranian faculty member commented that he left Iran for the US so that he could speak openly, but now finds himself unable to speak openly even in the US. The right to express dissenting views is a cornerstone of our intellectual mission as scientists and citizens. Open debate in this country should never include promotion of violence, but it must allow the articulation of views that make some people uncomfortable. Censuring Eisen for expressing views uncomfortable to some would ally eLife and HHMI with one side of an ongoing political issue, create a chilling effect on open debate in American academia, and risk ushering in a new wave of McCarthy-esque targeting of peace activists. We urge eLife, HHMI, and other American academic institutions, not to censure Eisen or other scientists articulating legitimate (i.e. non-violent) political opinions. To do so harms the reputation of these institutions, places at particular risk the careers of junior scientists of diverse faiths and backgrounds, and undermines the free exchange of ideas necessary for scientific discovery. (The undersigned include many junior colleagues who are afraid of retribution for expressing their opinions, so they have signed anonymously. This in itself speaks volumes) Nancy Kanwisher, Professor, MIT Josh Dubnau, Professor, Stony Brook School of Medicine. Ken Miller, Professor of Neuroscience, Columbia University Mayank Mehta, Professor and Director of the Center for Physics of Life, UCLA Peter Sterling Professor of Neuroscience, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania University of Pennysylvania Bence Ölveczky, Professor, Harvard Alfonso Caramazza, Professor, Harvard University Bevil Conway Michael Shadlen MD, PhD, Professor, Columbia University Anthony Zador, Professor, CSHL John W. Krakauer, Professor, Johns Hopkins University Joshua Tenenbaum, Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT Laura Schulz, Professor of Cognitive Science, Department of Brain and Cognitive Science, MIT Grace Lindsay, Assistant Professor, New York UniversityAnonymous, professor, University of Bristol Maxine Sherman, Lecturer, University of Sussex Sebastiaan Mathôt, assistant professor, University of Groningen Suhasa Kodandaramaiah Pandelis Perakakis, Associate Professor of Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid Adam Buchwald, Professor, NYU Anonymous graduate student Anonymous, Postdoc, Harvard University Alexis Makin, Dr, University of Liverpool Anonymous, Graduate Student, Harvard University Miguel Arocena, associate professor, Universidad de la República, Uruguay Ahlem Assali, PhD, ICM-Paris Brain Institute Adrian Bondy, postdoctoral research fellow, Princeton University Anonymous graduate student Panagiota Theodoni, PhD, graduate student in philosophy, University of Athens Rob Reinhart, associate professor, Boston university Scott Rennie, Post doctoral researcher, Champalimaud Research Lara Urban, Principal Investigator, Helmholtz Munich Vincent Bonin, Associate Professor, KU Leuven Anonymous Postdoc, University of Nottingham Giacomo Aldegheri, Postdoc, University of Amsterdam Anonymous graduate student, University of Pennsylvania Anonymous trainee, Yale University Anonymous grad student, University of Toronto Anonymous Assistant Professor, University of Toronto Anonymous Postdoc, Rockefeller University Anonymous assistant professor Ruth Rosenholtz Todd Gureckis Shaul Pollak, Group Leader, University of Vienna Anonymous graduate student, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig Hakwan Lau, Team Leader, RIKEN Center for Brain Science Candas Sert, Graduate student, Humboldt University of Berlin, Mind&Brain Institute Anonymous Postdoctoral researcher, Harvard Medical School Siddhartha Das, Dr, IIIT Hyderabad Anonymous, Postdoc, CEA Anonymous, Postdoc, Harvard University Anonymous Graduate student, University of Glasgow Anonymous Graduate student, Université Paris-Cité Devang Mehta, Assistant Professor, KU Leuven, Belgium Asif Bakshi Anonymous postdoc, UNC Chapel Hill Paul LaFosse, graduate student, University of Maryland College Park Sean Escola, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University Anonymous PhD Student, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Anonymous Postdoc, UConn Mazen Al Borno, Assistant Professor, University of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus Konrad Kording, Professor, University of Pennsylvania Anonymous Faculty, Harvard Medical School

Go to follow-up “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”St…

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”Steven Weinberg In…

By Marcin Milkowski, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences

Scientist Katalin Karikó’s work didn’t get the attention it deserved until the start of the pandemic in 2020, when suddenly her area of expertise, mRNA, became the most important subject of research worldwide. From one day to the next, Karikó became the star of the scientific community. Today she looks back on why her research was not funded, advocates for new role models and explains why she didn`t give up her career for her family.

We investigate reported cases of OSF users being accidentally flagged or deactivated on a case-by-case base. If you have an account or material that has been fl

A study of six online platforms in Poland, Slovakia and Spain finds that Twitter has the highest prevalence of disinformation.