BLUE
Profile banner
JG
James Green
@ajamesgreen.bsky.social
Ebikes, data, medicines, behaviour change, communication, wine, food. Alleged health psychologist www.ajamesgreen.com www.iscycle.ie
408 followers793 following227 posts
Reposted by James Green
PLpaullecomte.bsky.social

Completely forgot to post images from the Tahu-nui-ā-Rangi Aurora Australis on 17th sept under a full moon. Standing in knee deep dry fresh powder snow in my shorts, I need my head read bringing these images go you. Looking to Remarkables & Queenstown

Aurora over the Queenstown valley with lots of fresh new snow
Aurora over the Queenstown valley with lots of fresh new snow
Aurora over the Queenstown valley with lots of fresh new snow
Aurora over the Queenstown valley with lots of fresh new snow
9
Reposted by James Green
BDdevezer.bsky.social

The paper, as it stands, would still not be able to support its conclusions. What all of this comes down to is not that open science is good (it is tho!) or documentation helps (it might!). It's that it all comes down to design and inference. It's the science that ultimately matters.

1
Reposted by James Green
ENemilynordmann.bsky.social

I bought this years ago from Science on a Postcard and I still have it on my desk and give it to my mentees #AcademicSky

Alt text: A decision-making checklist on a yellow background titled "SHOULD YOU SAY NO?" The checklist is divided into sections with corresponding questions and "Y" and "N" (Yes or No) columns for answers:

1. TIME

Does it fit with my other responsibilities?

Will it mean sacrificing time for myself?



2. GAINS

Will it help me gain skills?

Will it help me build new collaborations?

Will I be paid for it?

Will it result in authorship(s)?



3. DESIRE

Do I really want to do it?



4. FUTURE

Could it lead to opportunities in future?



5. WHO ELSE?

Has anyone been overlooked?




Each section has empty circles for users to mark their responses under the Y (Yes) or N (No) column.
10
Reposted by James Green
BMbenmonreal.bsky.social

I just took a survey that would have benefited from the modified 2-D Likert scale I just invented

Likert survey form with options
"strongly agree - agree - neutral - disagree - strongly disagree", or
"grudgingly agree - meh - grudgingly disagree", or 
"this question is annoying"
34
Reposted by James Green
RBryanboyd.bsky.social

Remember MOOCs? Remember NFTs? Remember crypto? No? Neither does your provost--they're working on AI now

18
JGajamesgreen.bsky.social

What do you call a beige retractable ruler? A taupe measure

0
Reposted by James Green
BUbantshireuni.bsky.social

Please stop emailing us questions about your timetables. They’re on schedule to be delivered three weeks after lectures start.

1
Reposted by James Green
Smehr.nz

this is pretty amazing: @lucinauddin.bsky.socialwww.lieffcabraser.com/antitrust/ac... summary of the case:

The Publisher Defendants’ Scheme has three primary components. First, the Publisher Defendants agreed to not compensate scholars for their labor, in particular not to pay for their peer review services (the “Unpaid Peer Review Rule”). In other words, the Publisher Defendants agreed to fix the price of peer review services at zero. The Publisher Defendants also agreed to coerce scholars into providing their labor for nothing by expressly linking their unpaid labor with their ability to get their manuscripts published in the Publisher Defendants’ journals. In the “publish or perish” world of academia, the Publisher Defendants essentially agreed to hold the careers of scholars hostage so that the Publisher Defendants could force them to provide their valuable labor for free.
Second, the Publisher Defendants agreed not to compete with each other for manuscripts by requiring scholars to submit their manuscripts to only one journal at a time (the “Single Submission Rule”). The Single Submission Rule substantially reduces competition among the Publisher Defendants, substantially decreasing incentives to review manuscripts promptly and publish meritorious research quickly. The Single Submission Rule also robs scholars of negotiating leverage they otherwise would have had if more than one journal offered to publish their manuscripts. Thus, the Publisher Defendants know that if they offer to publish a manuscript, the submitting scholar has no viable alternative and the Publisher Defendant can then dictate the terms of publication.
Third, the Publisher Defendants agreed to prohibit scholars from freely sharing the scientific advancements described in submitted manuscripts while those manuscripts are under peer review, a process that often takes over a year (the “Gag Rule”). From the moment scholars submit manuscripts for publication, the Publisher Defendants behave as though the scientific advancements set forth in the manuscripts are their property, to be shared only if the Publisher Defendants grant permission. Moreover, when the Publisher Defendants select manuscripts for publication, the Publisher Defendants will often require scholars to sign away all intellectual property rights, in exchange for nothing. The manuscripts then become the actual property of the Publisher Defendants, and the Publisher Defendants charge the maximum the market will bear for access to that scientific knowledge.
11
Reposted by James Green
DZdavidzipper.bsky.social

Lesson of this study: Bicyclists are an indicator species for general street safety (across drivers, pedestrians, etc). If you see lots of people cycling, city streets are probably safe. If not, you've got a problem. doi.org/10.1016/j.jc...

2
Profile banner
JG
James Green
@ajamesgreen.bsky.social
Ebikes, data, medicines, behaviour change, communication, wine, food. Alleged health psychologist www.ajamesgreen.com www.iscycle.ie
408 followers793 following227 posts