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
Your argument for qualitative methods reshaping environmental psychology relies on just four hand-picked studies. How can such a narrow, selective sample support such sweeping claims about the field’s future? Isn’t there a risk that you’re replacing one methodological bias with another by presenting qualitative research through an overly curated lens?