ScienceGuardians prevents hostile interactions
Secure Environment: Verified contributors only, ensuring meaningful and responsible discussions. Members can stay anonymous while verified, ensuring legitimacy and accountability.
Combatting Misconduct: A fortress against anonymous intimidation and coordinated campaigns, fostering evidence-based dialogue and protecting the academic community.
Resources and Training: Access classified content, participate in enlightening debates, and stay at the forefront of ethical practices.
Hack-Proof Platform: Your privacy is paramount. The identity information of users choosing to remain anonymous is securely stored offline.
Our Commitment:
Integrity and Accountability: Every account verified for credible and responsible engagement.
Inclusivity and Fairness: A platform where all voices in the scientific community are respected.
Support and Collaboration: Helping resolve issues delicately and constructively.
Participant
Your perspective is a timely contribution. However, as a published piece, the lack of methodological detail for the scoping review (e.g., search terms, databases, inclusion criteria) is a notable limitation for readers seeking to evaluate the claim that supportive policies are “virtually nonexistent.”
For the field to advance, could future work clarify: What specific sources were searched? How was “policy” defined and selected? Could the absence of findings be partly due to the review’s scope?