One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: the Frustration of Diversity Efforts in STEM
Keynote at PyData LondonJuly 14, 2019https://pydata.org/london2019/schedule/presentation/47/DescriptionTech has spent millions of dollars in efforts to diversify workplaces. Despite this, it seems after each spell of progress, a series of retrograde events ensue. Anti-diversity manifestos, backlash to assertive hiring, and sexual misconduct scandals crop up every few months, sucking the air from every board room. This will be a digest of research, recent events, and pointers on women in STEM.AbstractTwo years ago, a Google engineer attended a diversity program. He had such an adverse reaction to it, that he proceeded to write a 10-page anti-diversity manifesto that he circulated on internal channels. It later became public, furor ensued, and the engineer was fired. Far from being the end of the story, this engineer played the victim of political correctness and became a darling of conservative media outlets. What happened here? One tech company's attempts to educate its employees and improve the internal culture mightily backfired and as a result the cause for women in STEM was choked back. While a general sense that moving toward gender parity is desirable (though some still disagree with this premise), what actions to take remains unclear. Diversity trainings have been scarcely evaluated, and when they have, they seem to change awareness but not behavior. Sometimes, they create a backlash. More assertive action, like quotas, engender open resentment. Women in science and technology are underestimated by peers and teachers, pressed by stereotypes, disadvantaged in hiring and career progression, sexually harassed, disheartened as their expertise is ignored…and now they are resented for diversity initiatives. Science and technology needs its leaders to be fully committed to diversity and in frank understanding of the social-justice underpinnings. Two vehicles for change are: men leaders who are allies, and more women in leadership. The recent DataCamp debacle shows that a whole community's action was needed to right the wrongs of one harasser and one company's reticence to make him accountable. I aim to elicit your commitments to hire and promote women affirmatively, and to get educated and empower activism with evidence.
This dataset provides a granular, step-by-step calculation of the costs associated with publishing primary research articles, from submission, through peer-review, to publication, indexing and archiving. It is found that these costs range from less than US$200 per article in modern, large scale publishing platforms using post-publication peer-review, to about US$1,000 per article in prestigious journals with rejection rates exceeding 90%. The publication costs for a representative scholarly article today come to lie at around US$400. The additional non-publication cost items that make up the difference between publication costs and final price are discussed. The dataset refers to calculations about the scenarios described in a publication about that topic.
Next in Reproducibility: Standards, Policies, Infrastructure, and Human Factors
What is next for reproducibility? Research communities will need to develop standards of practice, institutions will adopt formal policies, and funding agencies may look to support more infrastructure and tools to enable reproducibility.
Increasing Your Research's Exposure on Figshare Using the FAIR Data Principles
The FAIR principles were published in 2016 in a Scientific Data article titled 'FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship'. These were developed to aid in the discovery and reuse of research data.FAIR stands for Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. Data that meet these principles are more optimal for reuse and discoverability and in turn increase your research's exposure.Here's how your data is more FAIR when it's on Figshare.Illustration by Jason McDermott of RedPenBlackPen.
Press release for launch of ORCID funders open letter. ORCID is pleased to announce the launch of an open letter in support of the use of ORCID identifiers (iDs) in the grant application and reporting process. Nine funding bodies around the world have signed the letter and invite others to join them.
DORA, Plan S and the (open) Future of Research Evaluation
Slides from a talk given to the general assembly of Science Europe in Brussels on 22 Nov 2018. Gives an overview of the problems of over-metricised research evaluation and how this might be tackled, in part through initiatives driven by DORA, and how they are linked with drives such as Plan S to promote open science. Shared under a CC-BY-SA opinion (though Figshare doesn't seem to allow me to select that option from their drop-down menu).
The State of Open Data 2018 looks at global attitudes towards open data. It includes survey results of researchers and a collection of articles from industry experts, as well as a foreword from Ross Wilkinson, Director, Global Strategy at Australian Research Data Commons.
Practical Challenges for Researchers in Data Sharing
In one of the largest surveys of researchers about research data (with over 7,700 respondents), Springer Nature finds widespread data sharing associated with published works and a desire from researchers that their data are discoverable.
Figshare's annual report shows that open data has become more embedded in the research community: 82% of survey respondents are aware of open data sets and more researchers are curating their data for sharing.