"I set up a Discord server for folks doing science, and I’ll add anyone who reaches out and explains what they’re looking to do. Once we reach a critical mass, this could be a place where people go for advice, to discuss ideas, and find collaborators."
I think you can just reach out to him and ask to join the discord (twitter might be best)
"68 reported correlates of treating things as “sacred” are listed, and collected into seven themes. Most can be plausibly explained via two hypotheses. The first, taken from Durkheim, is that treating things as sacred mainly functions to bind groups together via a shared view of it. The second hypothesis, suggested by psychology’s construal level theory, is that humans acquired a habit of seeing sacred things as if from afar, even when they are close, to more consistently see those things the same as others in their groups."
things were secret because they were taboo up against doctrinal church perch. tho masons also included engineering, why they were so big and public in the us west re mining and have their own graveyards. I separate science out, as weights and measures. and math as a partner in philosophy. think we live in an extraordinary time where exchange is pretty much immediate, open to seas where access on the internet -- and how that makes it utterly loosey goosey.
So, the two things that will make this move most profoundly in my mind: 1. How do we get science of this kind to show up on pubmed? Cause it it does, it's kind of official, and scientists will do it. And that breaks them free of journals. 2. If the Peers that are everyone on the Internet have the ability to participate in an open source peer review process, on a platform like oh, I don't know, sub stack, do we all of a sudden have an open source, verifiable, vastly scaled peer review journal community that can do the picture of you in a way that is not predatory? And the second that is on PubMed, and it gives you credit for having publish something as an academic, then suddenly getting more stuff out the door for everybody and furiously peer reviewing everybody else's work--not because we believe in peer review, but mostly because it will let us get better science out the door together .... all of which is to say I'm on board.
I have not seen that. I will look at it. Thank you so much for the tip. I do think when it comes to academics, PubMed will end up being mandatory. And of things I do not know, it's how to get over that bridge. Do you?
It seems you can just submit your journal for approval. I'm not sure we would qualify as we publish across all scientific disciplines not just biology.
How do we sign up?
"I set up a Discord server for folks doing science, and I’ll add anyone who reaches out and explains what they’re looking to do. Once we reach a critical mass, this could be a place where people go for advice, to discuss ideas, and find collaborators."
I think you can just reach out to him and ask to join the discord (twitter might be best)
thanks for link. https://www.theseedsofscience.org/2023-we-see-the-sacred-from-afar-to-see-it-the-same
"68 reported correlates of treating things as “sacred” are listed, and collected into seven themes. Most can be plausibly explained via two hypotheses. The first, taken from Durkheim, is that treating things as sacred mainly functions to bind groups together via a shared view of it. The second hypothesis, suggested by psychology’s construal level theory, is that humans acquired a habit of seeing sacred things as if from afar, even when they are close, to more consistently see those things the same as others in their groups."
I have theories about echo spread, and distance.
things were secret because they were taboo up against doctrinal church perch. tho masons also included engineering, why they were so big and public in the us west re mining and have their own graveyards. I separate science out, as weights and measures. and math as a partner in philosophy. think we live in an extraordinary time where exchange is pretty much immediate, open to seas where access on the internet -- and how that makes it utterly loosey goosey.
So, the two things that will make this move most profoundly in my mind: 1. How do we get science of this kind to show up on pubmed? Cause it it does, it's kind of official, and scientists will do it. And that breaks them free of journals. 2. If the Peers that are everyone on the Internet have the ability to participate in an open source peer review process, on a platform like oh, I don't know, sub stack, do we all of a sudden have an open source, verifiable, vastly scaled peer review journal community that can do the picture of you in a way that is not predatory? And the second that is on PubMed, and it gives you credit for having publish something as an academic, then suddenly getting more stuff out the door for everybody and furiously peer reviewing everybody else's work--not because we believe in peer review, but mostly because it will let us get better science out the door together .... all of which is to say I'm on board.
Have you checked out Seeds of Science (the peer-reviewed journal)?
https://www.theseedsofscience.org/
1) Our papers are not on PubMed but they are on Google Scholar and other major academic databases.
2) Our community-based review is attempting to do what you describe, open voting/commenting with top comments published as well in the PDF
:)
I have not seen that. I will look at it. Thank you so much for the tip. I do think when it comes to academics, PubMed will end up being mandatory. And of things I do not know, it's how to get over that bridge. Do you?
It seems you can just submit your journal for approval. I'm not sure we would qualify as we publish across all scientific disciplines not just biology.
Here, by the way, is my example of having done so: https://open.substack.com/pub/thefrontierpsychiatrists/p/i-did-not-want-to-be-angry-all-the?r=1ct8f&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web