ScienceGuardians identifies anonymous intimidation & coordinated campaigns
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
You claim to use an “integrated TOE-DOI framework” but then just list a bunch of DOI factors (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, etc.) as the technological context of the TOE model. That’s not integrating two models, that’s just renaming and repackaging one into the other. Where’s the actual distinct “technological context” from TOE? This seems like a major conceptual screw-up. Please clarify how this isn’t just redundant and lazy framing.