Here’s a new feature from ResearchHub designed to increase the incentive for scientists to share preregistrations. If anyone would like to share their thoughts/feedback, it would be much appreciated!
twitter.com/researchhub/status
reddit.com/r/Open_Science/comm

Intro 

#FluidDyn is an educational / research project to advance the field of #FluidMechanics through computational, experimental and data processing methods. The motivation behind this project is given here:

https://fluiddyn.readthedocs.io/en/latest/intro-motivations.html

We develop primarily in #Python. We are also proponents of #OpenScience philosophy. This account is managed by @ashwinvis (for now). Follow us for updates about our project and in extension exciting developments in the scientific stack of Python.

#introduction #introductions #OpenSource

Today the Open Access Week starts. This page lists over 80 events (ignore the map with previous events). There are many more activities. Look at and , as well as what your local research library does.
openaccessweek.org/events/even
reddit.com/r/Open_Science/comm

Sustaining the Commons. The strategic plans of the Humanity Commons for the network’s technical, financial, and governance future. A common problem for infrastructure.
sustaining.hcommons.org/
reddit.com/r/Open_Science/comm

Do you already know the Tracking Project ? It is a crowd-sourced social-tagging project, running on open-source software, to capture news and comment on open access. This Feed uses it a lot.
cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/OATP_in
reddit.com/r/Open_Science/comm

The USAID journal "Global Health: Science and Practice" plans to to address power imbalances in publishing. The author instructions will encourage participation of researchers from the low income countries the paper is about. A more diverse editorial board.
ghspjournal.org/content/8/3/32
reddit.com/r/Open_Science/comm

Just stumbled upon
@OpenScienceFeed

It'a a great bot to follow for all academically oriented fediverse folks.

#openscience #endorsement

A metastudy of 326 systematic reviews of clinical trials in top journals showed that only 11% performed trial registry searches. Of those that did not 56% missed at least 1 potentially relevant trial.
sciencedirect.com/science/arti
reddit.com/r/Open_Science/comm

In 1990 63% of published studies claimed to have produced positive results. By 2007 this was more than 85%. "in my view, it’s the scientists who report negative results who are more likely to move a field forward."
nature.com/articles/d41586-019
reddit.com/r/Open_Science/comm

Show more
FediScience.org

Fediscience is the social network for scientists.