Kicking off the #OpenScience convergence workshop in Washington DC.
-
We will head into a lunch break soonish and after that there will be breakout sessions from which I won't be live-tooting because we're using Chatham House Rule ( participants are free to use the information received but don't identify the identities), so I'll wait until the discussion later to report out. Next to the fact that I need to facilitate the discussion and I cannot multi task that well
-
Back to some tooting after some very interesting break out discussions!
Were talking about burning down the journal system, perhaps one journal at a time.
Way to close off the day
A more mild idea offered is to remove journal titles from any type of evaluation.
-
Next up in the discussion: #OpenScience is in an echo-chamber. There is a shared culture and language that is being used. How do we talk and engage to outsiders?
Coalition building is difficult when there are trust problems.
There are some people that wear different hats and can engage outside of their own area. Can we map a network of people in this room to see where the bridges are?
-
Differences in disciplines came up in the training discussion: who are we marketing to and what levers do we need to push that excites them? Words matter: do we talk about reproducibility, transparency or #OpenScience
How do we identify Open Science work that is not labeled as such?
We need to be able to work in local contexts - not everything needs to be scaled up.
What is Open Science in different communities of practice?