diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'posts/2018-04-10-update-open-research.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | posts/2018-04-10-update-open-research.md | 4 |
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/posts/2018-04-10-update-open-research.md b/posts/2018-04-10-update-open-research.md index 4669a09..a298d03 100644 --- a/posts/2018-04-10-update-open-research.md +++ b/posts/2018-04-10-update-open-research.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ I am also reading Levy's [Hackers](http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/books/hac I can see the connection of ideas from the hacker ethic to free software to the open source philosophy. My guess is that the software world is fortunate to have pioneers who advocated for freedom and openness from the beginning, whereas for academia which has a much longer history, credit protection has always been a bigger concern. -Also a month ago I attended a workshop called [Open research: rethinking scientific collaboration](https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/conferences/open-research-rethinking-scientific-collaboration). That was the first time I met a group of people (mostly physicists) who also want open research to happen, and we had some stimulating discussions. +Also a month ago I attended a workshop called [Open research: rethinking scientific collaboration](https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/conferences/open-research-rethinking-scientific-collaboration). That was the first time I met a group of people (mostly physicists) who also want open research to happen, and we had some stimulating discussions. Many thanks to the organisers at Perimeter Institute for organising the event, and special thanks to [Matteo Smerlak](https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/people/matteo-smerlak) and [Ashley Milsted](https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/people/ashley-milsted) for invitation and hosting. From both of these I feel like I should write an updated post on open research. @@ -64,4 +64,4 @@ During the workshop many efforts for open research were mentioned, and afterward In a conversation during the workshop, one of the participants called open science "normal science", because reproducibility, open access, collaborations, and fair attributions are all what science is supposed to be, and practices like treating the readers as buyers rather than users should be called "bad science", rather than "closed science". -To which an organiser replied: maybe we should rename the workshop "Not-bad science". +To which an organiser replied: maybe we should rename the workshop "Not-bad science".
\ No newline at end of file |