The user Jura on Wikipedia talks states that interdisciplinary exchange would benefit specialists
Maybe both specialists in the field and specialists in other fields could benefit from a compilation of methods and concepts in general. People in the field would have everything at hand or avoid pitfals in some of the methods. Those from other fields can provide methodological input or gain insight for their field. The question is then how to go about it. --- Jura 14:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
0
1
Tags
CSCW (Computer-supported cooperative work)
Computing Sciences
Related
Dr.Angela Rasmussen tweets the difficulty of communicating across disciplines because of terminology.
Ellie Murray tweets about how to communicate with other scientists from other disciplines to collaborate
Solutions: Researchers of different disciplines need tools to bridge the gaps between disciplines and find a common language to communicate effectively
Maria I. Tapia (PhD) responds to JLJs tweet about solution for terminology barriers, emphasizing the problem
The user Jura on Wikipedia talks states that interdisciplinary exchange would benefit specialists
Jeremy Howard tweets about how most meetings are missing aerosol scientists
Jose-Luis Jimenez tweets about the misuse of an image to explain modes of transmission
Austin Wright expresses that researchers should expand their sources from where they are getting information
Trevor Bedford tweets about an existing hashtag whose purpose has changed from a conversational space to an outreach space
Different sources of knowledge
The user Jura on Wikipedia talks states that interdisciplinary exchange would benefit specialists
Tweet and reply from Jonathon Block and Glen de Vries about importance of scicomm and pre-print dangers
Steven Nono tweets about the importance of science communication with so many papers being published
Bhramar Mukherjee tweets that the exponential curve of COVID papers needs to flatten
Wikipedia: Different research demonstrates different results regarding the effectiveness of a drug/treatment that causes a big gap among the data being communicated.
Wikipedia: WHO vs Johns Hopkins University (JHU): two trusted sources constantly differ in data.
Wikipedia: Research projects being buried under more research and information is being overlooked or hard to be reached at.
Wikipedia: Inconsistencies in numbers vary from source to source. Does accuracy in data make it credible, or should the source's identity be the deciding factor in reliability?
Wikipedia: Restrictions against preprints and what adds credibility to a source
Big surge of information regarding COVID-19, people should find multiple sources to find reliability in the information, and not accept all information at face value.
Preprints: some researchers believe speed is more important of validity. These are different times when information is needed more urgently, still, it is recommended researchers investigate further on these preprints and peer review them themselves.