Yesterday, at the FediScience annual meeting, we had a similar question by @jasemrau . Rephrased for brevity: whether support for science communication by our association bearing the label Fedi"Science" does include humanities, social sciences, etc? Well, of course, it does.
Likewise, the Open "Science" idea does not draw a line between physics, biology, chemistry on one and philology or archaeology on the other side (or outside).
It is our language use, which makes this distinction. And, of course, there are real differences and numerous consequences for our lab / office lingo and culture. The speakers in Elen's link draw on bioinformatics publications (at least one 馃槈 ) for humanities scholars. But not everything is relatable between our subjects.
During the last few years, I learned that whilst all this is true, some fundamental obstacles in the path to open, transparent research approaches are prevalent in apparently every subject. And we would indeed profit from promoting solutions to such issues "across the aisle".
So, I wonder, how can we emphasize that #OpenScience includes humanities and other subjects and that #Scicomm does that too? All that whilst not dropping the established terms? I clearly realized my ignorance. This, apparently, is an issue.
Sorry for derailing this thread, Danny.
PS if anyone, who is better with words, has an idea ... bring it forward, please.