@michael_barlev I’m not sure if you’ll get human nature insights from it, but James Acaster’s 4-part Netflix special is a masterclass in structuring storytelling and playing with conventions.
@Chops310 At my last job, the office thermostat had no markings other than warmer/colder. I heard from maintenance it was intentionally designed for illusion of control. Actual temperature range it allowed = 1 degree.
@michael_barlev Way back when, I really liked this one. Not sure how well the science holds up these days, but the writing is great. https://t.co/JUNzUSBXBO. Also I second Dr Tatiana’s Sex Advice book.
@RebeccaSear Wondering - are you referring to some explicit rejection of interdisciplinarity or a lack of operational interdisciplinarity through collaborations across disciplines?
What are the best academic papers and popular science pieces on the pandemic you’ve seen to date? Compiling a list to use in a class on the psychology of infection.
@siminevazire I actually agree with the intent of this policy. Reviewers don’t have a right to attack authors, if that occurs. But confirming w reviewer or redacting is better than outright changing text.
@NeilLewisJr About half of these are preprints. Maybe I’m in the dark, but should we consider these being removed because of feedback “retractions” or “the point of using a preprint?”
@NeilLewisJr@JonathanLWai Very interesting paper. Key line for me - ...”we should be more openly willing to say to our students, colleagues, the me-dia, and practitioners: “I don’t know.”’
@zerdeve @dstephenlindsay I’m not sure I see it as punching down without more explanation. However, I do see it as incredibly frustrating and something *requiring* explanation from the editor. It shouldn’t be a “long shot” to expect feedback in this kind of situation.