@gedankenstuecke@scholar.social cover
@gedankenstuecke@scholar.social avatar

gedankenstuecke

@[email protected]

I do #openscience & apply #citizenscience as a Senior Researcher at The Alan Turing Institute in London & as the Director of Research for the Open Humans Foundation. I also do #opensource & #opendata as the co-founder of openSNP.org

Love all things related to open, incl. source|data|science|culture :cc_zero: :OpenAccess: :scihub: 💖

In a former life I did #Bioinformatics|#Ecology|#Evolution. When not researching, I love doing #photography and still #BelieveInFilm 🎞️

My posts are searchable

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

gedankenstuecke , to AcademicChatter group
@gedankenstuecke@scholar.social avatar

Got this email earlier and I’m still upset about it. Some unnamed “team from , & ” fed our preprint through their “" to generate "suggestions" on how we could improve it.

This feels like some really shit study that seems to think asking for consent is optional. And like one that wants to spin out into an even shittier start-up in the future (hence not giving any names of team members)?

@academicchatter @hci

Screenshot of an email, reads: Hi there, Congratulations on your recent preprint on arXiv, titled "Co-Designing a wiki-based community knowledge management system for personal science". We are grateful for your hard work and dedication to the field, and we value your contributions! We are part of a team from Northwestern University, Stanford University, and Cornell University, committed to providing research feedback to scholars with the assistance of advance AI models. We have followed your work closely and, upon a thorough examination, generate the suggestions below. These suggestions cover various aspects of your work, including the writing style, research design, and title. We hope they offer you fresh insights that may enhance the depth and impact of your research. To view detailed comments regarding your research, please visit this link: http://feedback.kellogg.northwestern.edu/redacted Once again, congratulations on your achievement. We are certain that your work will have an impact on the future of your field and will inspire fellow researchers worldwide. Should you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us at redacted_address@outlook.com. Your insights would be invaluable in helping us better support the community's research development.
ALT
  • Reply
  • Expand (11)
  • Collapse (11)
    • gedankenstuecke OP ,
    @gedankenstuecke@scholar.social avatar

    @mhaklay @academicchatter @hci Beyond the lack of consent, the anonymity also really bothers me I have to say. I think I would mind a lot less if there were some names of researchers attached to it, instead of hiding behind a generic email and throwing around the names of institutions.

    Otherwise fully agree, touching computers is becoming more and more problematic and has been for years now.

    gedankenstuecke OP ,
    @gedankenstuecke@scholar.social avatar

    @stevoo @academicchatter @hci

    Let me give you one example

    Recommended title: “Building a Peer-Supported Wiki for Personal Science: Design”
    Reasoning: This title provides a comprehensive view of the stages involved in the paper

    gedankenstuecke OP ,
    @gedankenstuecke@scholar.social avatar

    @mattjhodgkinson @academicchatter @hci could be!

    gedankenstuecke OP ,
    @gedankenstuecke@scholar.social avatar

    @hauschke @academicchatter @hci @serhii yeah, but a scam that’s still hosted under Northwestern's domain! I did email back asking if this is a research study and if so who the PI is and which IRB approved this.

    gedankenstuecke OP ,
    @gedankenstuecke@scholar.social avatar

    @RangerRick @academicchatter @hci @tante the latter would be very on-brand though!

    rwg , to AcademicChatter group
    @rwg@aoir.social avatar

    Can explain these spammy emails from publication agencies who want to feature my academic articles? I've been told this this a scam, but I'm not sure how -- do they charge money to do this? Is this related to the dreaded ?

    As far as I'm concerned, if some publication wants to write a feature based on one of my publications... go for it. You don't need to contact me about it.

    @academicchatter

    gedankenstuecke ,
    @gedankenstuecke@scholar.social avatar

    @rwg @Sawherry @academicchatter i think:

    1. Lots of funders/evaluations require showing public outreach, so it can be a mutually beneficial scam: I pay you to “feature me” and I can check a box with the funder (incl. big EU funding).

    2. My guess is that many are “technically” based in the UK because the UK law makes it so easy and cheap to form a Ltd company. And at least until Brexit that also made it extra easy to “serve” all the EU based researches that needed “box ticking as a service”.

    gedankenstuecke ,
    @gedankenstuecke@scholar.social avatar

    @rwg @Sawherry @academicchatter exactly, as it doesn’t cost them anything and who knows; maybe folks elsewhere also need box ticking!

    mfi , to sociology group German
    @mfi@fediscience.org avatar

    Does anyone know a free tool that allows participants of a survey to anonymously upload up to 9 photos without seeing what others have uploaded? It's for my student research group, therefore no budget. We tried to embed the foto upload in our survey in , but the tool only allows a total upload of up to 64 MB per survey (across all respondents), which is definitely not enough.

    @academicchatter @politicalscience @sociology @socialscience

    gedankenstuecke ,
    @gedankenstuecke@scholar.social avatar

    @mfi @academicchatter @politicalscience @sociology @socialscience I think Framaforms allows file uploads too, not sure what the limits are though https://framaforms.org/abc/en/

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •