"We welcome #UKRI’s policy of requiring #OpenAccess to research that it funds, but we recommend that this should go further in requiring the recipients of research grants to share #data and #code alongside the publications arising from the funded research."
I wrote this little program to visualise biological tracking data from #microscopy. We used it a lot for sense checking and verifying a lot of our data, but sadly it won't make it into our next paper. Anyway, today I tidied it up a bit and will make it available with all the rest of the code for others to use.
What is Mastodon for? Self promotion or constructive engagement? I wonder about scientists that discuss/critique other's work in their own work, but then won't engage when queried about it here. Or journals/editors that promote their journals/positions in Mastodon, but then won't engage in any discussion that challenges any of their policies, etc? Maybe there should be a separate Mastodon server instance entitled something like "neuromatch.promotion" or "scientific.promotion" where they understanding is that authors, journals, etc can post their self-promoting toots without any expectation of responding to comments, questions, etc. Then we can decide who or what we want to follow on that server, but for the .social instances, we can focus on actual discussion?
The only engagement that seems to have followed posting [1] is views on Zenodo (and a #reproducibility discussion) - there's not much of a Fediverse response that can be given to the number of Zenodo views ...