Why LinkedIn and BlueSky for STIENID2025?

Let’s be honest—academic conferences just aren’t the same without the social media backchannel. We all miss the rapid-fire commentary, the unexpected reunions with long-lost collaborators, and, of course, the memes about session caffeine levels.

​

Social media has become an integral part of academic conferences, allowing for real-time engagement, networking, and extended discussion beyond the formal programme. The ability to connect online enhances scholarly exchange, making it easier to share insights, debate key issues, and foster collaborations that extend beyond the conference itself.  We wanted to make sure that we reaped the benefits of connecting the to-ing and fro-ing of the conference via social media, without making an unfortunate mis-step that may put our delegates, and their science, at risk.  More importantly, in choosing where to foster online discussions for this year’s Annual Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STIENID2025), we wanted to ensure that our selection of digital spaces reflect our values: critical engagement, inclusivity, and actual dialogue (rather than, say, performative outrage or anonymous trolling).

​

Our theme, Reconciliation of Research and Its Measurement, invites reflection on how research assessment shapes scholarship, including its implications for the diversity of our research workforce and other complex policy issues. These are important conversations that require a space where participants can engage openly, thoughtfully, and without concern for hostility or misrepresentation.

​

These discussions require an environment where participants feel safe to engage without fear of harassment, misrepresentation, or being swept into a viral storm of bad-faith attacks. That’s why we’ve chosen BlueSky and LinkedIn as our social media platforms of choice.

​

LinkedIn provides a professional space for structured discussions, while BlueSky’s decentralised and community-led approach allows for more open dialogue with better moderation tools. And, let’s be real—both platforms give us the best shot at maintaining an online space where scholars can actually debate ideas rather than fend off an onslaught of bots and bad takes.

​

We have deliberately chosen not to engage on platforms where the nature of discourse often prioritises visibility over depth, making it more challenging to sustain nuanced and respectful conversations. We believe that fostering discussion in spaces that reflect the principles of our community will help ensure a productive and inclusive exchange of ideas.

​

So, let’s keep the best parts of conference social media alive—without the worst. We invite all delegates to join the conversation on LinkedIn and BlueSky, where we can continue to engage with the critical questions shaping research evaluation today.

​

Footnote:  The authors may or may not have disappeared to egg Teslas as soon as this entry was live......

​

​

​