LogoLogo
  • The Unjournal
  • An Introduction to The Unjournal
    • Content overview
    • How to get involved
      • Brief version of call
      • Impactful Research Prize (pilot)
      • Jobs and paid projects with The Unjournal
        • Advisory/team roles (research, management)
        • Administration, operations and management roles
        • Research & operations-linked roles & projects
        • Standalone project: Impactful Research Scoping (temp. pause)
      • Independent evaluations (trial)
        • Reviewers from previous journal submissions
    • Organizational roles and responsibilities
      • Unjournal Field Specialists: Incentives and norms (trial)
    • Our team
      • Reinstein's story in brief
    • Plan of action
    • Explanations & outreach
      • Press releases
      • Outreach texts
      • Related articles and work
    • Updates (earlier)
      • Impactful Research Prize Winners
      • Previous updates
  • Why Unjournal?
    • Reshaping academic evaluation: Beyond accept/reject
    • Promoting open and robust science
    • Global priorities: Theory of Change (Logic Model)
      • Balancing information accessibility and hazard concerns
    • Promoting 'Dynamic Documents' and 'Living Research Projects'
      • Benefits of Dynamic Documents
      • Benefits of Living Research Projects
    • The File Drawer Effect (Article)
    • Open, reliable, and useful evaluation
      • Multiple dimensions of feedback
  • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
    • For research authors
    • Evaluation ('refereeing')
    • Suggesting and prioritizing research
  • Our policies: evaluation & workflow
    • Project submission, selection and prioritization
      • What research to target?
      • What specific areas do we cover?
      • Process: prioritizing research
        • Prioritization ratings: discussion
      • Suggesting research (forms, guidance)
      • "Direct evaluation" track
      • "Applied and Policy" Track
      • 'Conditional embargos' & exceptions
      • Formats, research stage, publication status
    • Evaluation
      • For prospective evaluators
      • Guidelines for evaluators
        • Why these guidelines/metrics?
        • Proposed curating robustness replication
        • Conventional guidelines for referee reports
      • Why pay evaluators (reviewers)?
      • Protecting anonymity
    • Mapping evaluation workflow
      • Evaluation workflow – Simplified
    • Communicating results
    • Recap: submissions
  • What is global-priorities-relevant research?
  • "Pivotal questions"
    • ‘Operationalizable’ questions
    • Why "operationalizable questions"?
  • Action and progress
    • Pilot steps
      • Pilot: Building a founding committee
      • Pilot: Identifying key research
      • Pilot: Setting up platforms
      • Setting up evaluation guidelines for pilot papers
      • 'Evaluators': Identifying and engaging
    • Plan of action (cross-link)
  • Grants and proposals
    • Survival and Flourishing Fund (successful)
    • ACX/LTFF grant proposal (as submitted, successful)
      • Notes: post-grant plan and revisions
      • (Linked proposals and comments - moved for now)
    • Unsuccessful applications
      • Clearer Thinking FTX regranting (unsuccessful)
      • FTX Future Fund (for further funding; unsuccessful)
      • Sloan
  • Parallel/partner initiatives and resources
    • eLife
    • Peer Communities In
    • Sciety
    • Asterisk
    • Related: EA/global priorities seminar series
    • EA and EA Forum initiatives
      • EA forum peer reviewing (related)
      • Links to EA Forum/"EA journal"
    • Other non-journal evaluation
    • Economics survey (Charness et al.)
  • Management details [mostly moved to Coda]
    • Governance of The Unjournal
    • Status, expenses, and payments
    • Evaluation manager process
      • Choosing evaluators (considerations)
        • Avoiding COI
        • Tips and text for contacting evaluators (private)
    • UJ Team: resources, onboarding
    • Policies/issues discussion
    • Research scoping discussion spaces
    • Communication and style
  • Tech, tools and resources
    • Tech scoping
    • Hosting & platforms
      • PubPub
      • Kotahi/Sciety (phased out)
        • Kotahi: submit/eval/mgmt (may be phasing out?)
        • Sciety (host & curate evals)
    • This GitBook; editing it, etc
    • Other tech and tools
      • Cryptpad (for evaluator or other anonymity)
      • hypothes.is for collab. annotation
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • The proposal: EA/global priorities research seminar
  • The "featured research" seminar series
  • Work-in-progress "brown-bag" talks
  • Key issues and considerations
  • Implementation plans
  • Other features
  • Other existing relevant seminars

Was this helpful?

Export as PDF
  1. Parallel/partner initiatives and resources

Related: EA/global priorities seminar series

PreviousAsteriskNextEA and EA Forum initiatives

Last updated 1 year ago

Was this helpful?

Organization/discussion following a thread in...

Some conversation highlights:

Kris Gulati: Recently I've been talking to more global priorities-aligned researchers to get to know what people are working on. I noticed they're somewhat scattered around (Stanford, PSE, Chicago, Oxford etc.). Additionally, sometimes established academics don't always entirely grasp global priorities-focused work and so it can be tough to get feedback on ideas from supervisors or peers when it's pretty different to the more orthodox research many academics focus on. One way of remedying this is to have an informal seminar series where people interested in GP work present early stages ideas and can receive feedback on their ideas, etc.

David Mannheim: Yes, this seems very promising. And I think that it would be pretty easy to get a weekly seminar series together on this on Zoom.

Robin Hanson: Why limit it to PhD students? All researchers can gain from feedback, and can offer it.

Eva Vivalt: Sounds great. GPI also has seminars on global priorities research in philosophy and economics that might be of interest. . . . [followed by some notes of caution] I'm just worried about stretching the senior people too thin. I've been attending the econ ones remotely for a while, and only this semester did I finally feel like it was really mature; a senior person less would be a setback. I fully think there should be many groups even within econ, and at different institutions; that would be a healthy ecosystem.

Kris, responding to Dave Rhys-Bernard: If GPI's seminar series is meant to be private, then it's worth running something additional, given we can get a decent critical mass of attendance and some senior people are happy to attend.

The proposal: EA/global priorities research seminar

DR: I think a focus on empirical economics, social science, and program evaluation would be most promising (and I could help with this). We could also incorporate "applications of economic theory and decision theory." Maybe I would lean away from philosophy and "fundamental theory," as GPI's seminar seems to concentrate on that.

Rethink Priorities would probably (my guess) be willing to attach our name to it and a decent number of our research staff would attend. I think GPI might be interested, hopefully Open Philanthropy and other organizations. Robin Hanson and other academics have expressed interest.

The "featured research" seminar series

  • We could try to get a MWE/PoC online seminar 1x per month, for example

  • Start with...

    • Presentations of strong, solid working papers and research projects from reputable authors

    • EA-adjacent and -aligned academics and academically connected EA-org researchers (at RP, Open Phil, GPI, etc.)

    • "Job-markety PhD students"

  • Make it desirable to present

    • Selective choices, "awards" with small stipends? Or "choose a donation"?

    • Guarantee of strong feedback and expertise

    • Collaborative annotated feedback

    • Communication/coverage of work

  • Encourage experts to attend and give concrete feedback

    • Open and saved chat window

    • Write up feedback; consider drawing future presenters from the attending crowd

Work-in-progress "brown-bag" talks

DR: I would not publicize this until we get The "featured research" seminar series off the ground . . . just do it informally, perhaps.

  • 15-20 minute presentations

  • Provide or link writeup for follow-up comments and Collaborative annotated feedback

Key issues and considerations

  • Such a seminar needs association with credible people and orgs to get participation.

  • Do we need any funding for small honorariums or some such?

  • Do we want to organize "writeups" and publicity? Should we gain support for this?

  • Economic theory and empirics are different groups . . . . I think a focus on empirical and applied work would have a critical mass.

Implementation plans

See draft above

Other features

Collaborative annotated feedback

I think a really neat feature, as a companion to the seminar, could be that the author would (ideally) post a working paper or project website and everyone would leave collaborative annotation comments on it.

This kind of feedback could be golden for the author.

Other existing relevant seminars

GPI lunchtime seminar (not public)

EA Global talks

RP has internal talks; hope to expand this

EA Academiafacebookapp
Logo