{"p":"","h":{"iv":"ROXSYW+cfvEbFHu5","at":"ocxplSQjdRC3tXEtB/9/wg=="}}

@dantheclamman Signups are closed while working on the application backlog. So we have time for a constructive discussion.

At least the ones that do sign up give no indication that they do not see themselves as publishing scientists, which is the main criterion. Just came across one who stated they were ECR and working on their first publication.

Do suggest a formulation for the signup page. We are working on the about page.
fediscience.org/about/more#abo

@RARohde @icesheetmike @FrankSonntag @steve

3
Share
Share on Mastodon
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Linkedin
Mike MacFerrin

@dantheclamman @FrankSonntag @steve @RARohde @VictorVenema
It is a tough balance, and I don’t envy y’all for it. Something akin to “actively involved in the production of scientific knowledge” might not feel so restrictive. (I have not thought this suggestion entirely through, feel free to toss it or go with something better if you have it).

If you need more help keeping the conspiracy-theorists & bad-faith trolls out, you can probably recruit some more volunteers to help w that.

1
2y
Dan Killam

@VictorVenema @RARohde @icesheetmike @FrankSonntag @steve I'll take a look. I'd wonder about the people who closed it without signing up, thinking incorrectly they didn't qualify

For what it's worth, I think some of the disgruntled posters on Twitter were looking for a reason not to join and seized on this to try to convince others, which is their prerogative

0
2y
Dan Killam

@VictorVenema @RARohde @icesheetmike @FrankSonntag @steve I think most of the people weren't upset about the signup page, but instead the followup email, which makes it sound like a peer reviewed pub in the last 5 years is a hard requirement, when it seems from your policy that isn't the case. So you might add a sentence to that email that other forms of participation qualify.

1
2y
Replies