I might add that part of being "accessible" is being visible; knowing that there are xyz options and how to reach (and access) those options are super important - because even if the affordable access is there, if no one knows it exists or how to use it...[does the tree make a sound?]

Certainly I'm a huge proponent of collaboration in research, but when collaboration tends to come up in discussion, my impression is that the interest in collaboration tends to be fuelled by self-interest (will this look good on x; will this increase the likelihood of receiving y grant; will it take away from publishing z sooner) - some of these might be great incentives for collaboration, which is fine - but what I like about the open pedagogy concept described here is that "collaboration" in this sense is for the sake of learning; I think this is incredibly beneficial for science and discovery to move forward

I really like this concept, especially the word "remixing," and it hits on a discussion a few of us had about the absurd costs of new textbook editions that make previous editions obsolete for students, yet aren't moving at a matched pace with the research development itself. I LOVE the idea of mixing a careful curation of knowledge that includes the teacher's direct participation in that curation, as well as editing or re-remixing based on the students' participation, such as the student perspective/view/interpretation of those works.

As a member of one of these smaller scientific societies that has run the stats on its international membership, I'm not quite sure how I feel about this statement; my view is that because of this particular society's smaller size, international collaboration has occurred much more often (or maybe just more visibly) than the larger societies I'm a part of. It's also the smaller society that moves around to different continents/ countries each meeting - again, I'm not sure how this actually compares proportionally to others, but I think there's something gained from the "feeling" of international connectedness that I haven't experiences in the larger scientific communities

These seem like very productive/honourable(?) goals in my opinion; but does anyone know what the "principles of scientific priority" refers to?

It sounds to me like not only does there have to be the ability to recreate the infrastructure, but also some confidence in that the recreation still uphold and maintain these same values/elements that are discussed

I wonder how "successful" is defined in this context

I am surprised by this! To the "fashionable themes" point above, I've heard discussions that I've found to be quite persuasive about how this pressure to publish in the highest-impact journals, only because they have high impact factors, is stifling creativity - researchers are writing for a very select group of individuals who may be perpetuating the same ideas (perhaps one of those trendy topics) - at stake is the development of new ideas, collaborations, and overall important developments that don't occur or prosper in vacuum.

There is a certain persuasiveness about using quantitative metrics, I think especially when numbers are used to describe more qualitative information

Another option: I have (at times when I've opted not to sign on to my library account) tried to access freely available copies (e.g., is there an open version on Google Scholar?) even though my institution had a subscription, because it seemed more efficient at the time than verifying my credentials & searching a database. Whether it is more efficient is debatable, but it is the case that I sometimes circumvent the library and maybe figured some others do too??

Ha - I find "life expectancy" to be an interesting proxy for "having the time to care about academic literature"

Certainly I agree that using the internet as a tool to provide open access is a way to reach huge audiences that are otherwise restricted by paywalls. But I think this also highlights that there is still a substantial group of people, without online access, that we are excluding by only discussing open online access; perhaps this is a pitch to not forget the potential influence of print media/free newspapers!

I'm curious about what "type" of student this refers to? Assuming post-secondary...but do you think secondary students access databases in schools (e.g., open access ones, Google Scholar, or dabbling in anything that's available - even if only the abstract)? This wasn't something available/seemingly known of when I was a high school student in a small rural community many years ago, but I'd be interested to know if this style of research has replaced/supplemented the Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Brittanica search-style that was advocated in my youth.

This finding doesn't surprise me - in Canada, I've been in clinics where I've seen doctors do their "WebMD search" on the spot. It makes sense that it's an area where scholarly research has a more tangible/immediate/practical impact on practice than perhaps some other fields... the breakdown of results by discipline is very interesting!

I feel positive about the the "attitudinal benefits" aspect of citizen science. Given that attitudes are so difficult to alter for any substantial amount of time, I think the participatory aspect of the movement may have some strategic power in this domain

I appreciate that the citizen science initiative occurs at many different levels - from the more individual DIY science, to something more scaleable. Highlights the potential impact of the movement

This is the first time I've heard this term and I like how it highlights individual autonomy. It also makes me think of, like other DIY projects or "Pinterest Fails," what are the repercussions or consequences of "bad DIY science?"

This highlights an important/useful side effect of "engagement" - I think I sometimes think/talk/hear about engagement in a circular fashion ("engagement is good because people are engaged..."), but this offers a practical implication of engaging individuals through citizen science - i.e., there are more forces to assist in protecting the environment. I wonder what other clear benefits exist as a function of engagement in other fields, going beyond "engagement for the sake of engagement"

I think that being aware of the limits our boundaries of what that metric illustrates is important

This line makes me think of a phenomenon where generations tend to believe that things were "best" in the past ("the good ol days") and that younger generations are messing things up. I don't have specific research to point to off hand, but I recall hearing that this effect persists across ages - so it's not just one particular age or generation that believes theirs (or "ours/mine") is best

A right to safety, not because of being a woman, but because of being a person

These are important reminders that "tools" or "methods" of violence do not have to be physical (either sexual or otherwise), and because of that, there are numerous ways the effects of violence can be presented, and also many ways the perpetration of violence can be hidden

I think "reciprocity" is a key idea here

My impression is that granting agencies are moving in this direction, which I think is a valuable way to motivate and encourage researchers within institutions (e.g., by requiring community consultations for research with special populations)

Similarly, I find it paradoxical that in psychology, at least 5+ years ago but still at a time when (I think) faculty were responsible for the full trio of research/teaching/service contributions, the most ubiquitous piece of advice for grad school applications was that a prospective student could only discuss motivations for research; mentioning teaching was equated with a kiss of death. I wonder if that has changed in more recent years? I also believe that good teaching is integral to good researching, so I've never quite understood what seems to be a devaluation of teaching

Taking an extra step to make work public might add an additional level of public scrutiny not otherwise encountered. By making research accessible outside of a university or academic system (for example if lab research gets picked up by local media), those researchers (or the research itself) now face a different kind of feedback/scrutiny that would have otherwise been hidden from view/avoided (not to make myself sound too afraid of public scrutiny...)

Admittedly, this view is informed probably by my recent disenchantment with academia, but I'm very skeptical about how much motivation really is "curiosity." It's indeed what I love about research, but I feel like curiosity is becoming more and more devalued as a motivator for science.

what is the distribution of responsibility here?

Normative vs. Cognitive Selectivity

This seems to me like an obvious statement to make, but also one that can be easily overlooked or taken for granted. E.g., when a goal in psychological research is to use data to inform policy, it's necessary to ensure scientific control but in a context that will actually exist in the real-world.... thus enters the challenging and sometimes precarious internal vs. external validity balance.

confounds

Meaning that as the use of Tylenol increases, so do rates of kidney failure, implying that Tylenol "causes" kidney failure. But since it's correlational data, it can also mean that maybe people with kidney failure are taking more Tylenol; Or there's something else that's related to both an increase in Tylenol consumption and kidney failures

Does something like a case study or an "N of 1" study fall under anecdote, or data? Is there a point where anecdotal evidence can become real "data?" Perhaps (partly) it's the introduction of systematic study that makes the difference between these 2 terms, or at a certain point when a person can be "some degree of" confident about the conclusions they draw, such as with an adequate sample size... but I think anecdote, narrative, etc. can be useful sources of information to at the very least inform larger, more "scientific" research

This comment does make me wonder where either sit on the "morality scale" - is lying more immoral/unethical than bullshitting, and why or why not?

Bull = disconnect from legitimating motives; Bull Session = disconnect from settled beliefs; Bullshit = disconnect from concern with truth

I feel like I'm missing/not fully grasping an important point here: In this example I struggle to understand what the "deceptive misrepresentation" component of the humbug definition is. If the orator is not trying to deceive the audience, where is the intent? Or does the author mean that there still is intent, it's just that it's in the orator's self-preservation rather than American history?