Over the past decade, the increased attention for questionable research practices (QRPs) and their origins led to the (Dutch) narrative on Recognition & Rewards (R&R). Very bluntly put: Incentives pressure researchers to do things that don't benefit research, so we need to change the academic incentive system. ^[1] It is a good thing the incentive system is changing.

Startup Therapy series As write more on this blog, I have come to the realization I thoroughly enjoy coming up with themes to coalesce my writing around. Themes create a certain mass for my activities, reflections, and thoughts to gather around. As a result, things collect in a way they would not without the theme being present. Themes help me write.

💡 This is a post in a series of Stories From My PhD. For background on this series, read the announcement post. I have been to a few dozen dissertation defenses over the past decade. As a result of attending PhD defenses on a fairly regular basis with the same folk, their procedures got discussed. A lot. This story is about a situation where a university's own arbitrary regulations are arbitrarily not applied.

💡 These are prepared remarks for the Choice Hackathon on March 18th, 2023. Find the recording on YouTube. When we think of gender gaps in academia or society more broadly, we may think of very specific issues. But gender gaps are mere symptoms, with a common cause: The patriarchy. This is a system where maleness ultimately dominates, at the cost of everyone.

I used to think I was a man’s man and heterosexual — but why? Where I grew up there was little public exposure beyond the traditional gender roles and heteronormative behaviors.

💡 This is a post in a series of Stories From My PhD. For background on this series, read the announcement post. As a researcher you are bound to uphold certain standards of conduct. When I defended my PhD, I was reminded of that rather explicitly with the following statement before being awarded my degree: This statement was only introduced in the past decade, but I think a reminder like this is a simple and effective idea.

💡 This is an idea I've toyed around with for a few years, but never wrote down. I would love to hear your feedback! Competitive research processes lead to many perverse incentives - incentives that put the researcher and the research process at odds. For example, because of selective publication pressures researchers primarily end up publishing those research processes that end up in significant or novel results.

Starting a small company means the buck stops with me on everything, every time. Since founding Liberate Science three years ago, that means I’ve had to pick up a lot of skills.

I used to introduce myself as a recovering academic in the years 2018-2022. Only now in 2023, am I comfortable saying I am a recovered academic. Having recovered, I am in a comfortable place to start sharing some personal stories that have not seen the light of day before in written form.

💡 These are my remarks for the junior researcher panel at the APE2023 conference. This blog is slightly edited for clarity and expands the quote selection from Aaron Swartz. Aaron Swartz died a decade ago today - to commemorate him I’ll start by reading selected quotes from the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto here today. I would argue to reframe publishing as a question of power — as Aaron talked about it: Information is power.

In my decade working on the openness of research I touched upon content accessibility only a few times, in part because it was and is a less discussed topic in my circles. But that does not make it less important.