Everything Hertz

194: Author verification

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 10 Nov 2025 13:00:00 +0100

We discuss whether preprint servers and journals should require author identity verification for submitting manuscripts. This would probably speed up the submission process, but is this worth the potential downsides? We also discuss the similarities and differences between academia and professional sports and a weird case of author identity theft.

Other links

The BJKS podcast https://bjks.buzzsprout.com

Social media links

193: The pop-up journal

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 07 Aug 2025 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James chat about a a new 'pop-up journal' concept for addressing specific research questions. They also answer a listener question from a journal grammar editor and discuss a new PNAS article on paper mills

Links

The pop-up journal
The episode where Dan's wife went into labor
The PNAS paper mill paper
A blog post from the PNAS paper lead author, Reese Richardson.
The Nature piece on the paper

Social media links

Citation

Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, August 7). 193: The pop-up journal, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/2ZMQ7

192: Outsourcing in academia

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Tue, 01 Jul 2025 19:00:00 +0200

Dan and James answer listener questions on outsourcing in academia and differences in research culture between academic institutions and commercial institutions.

Social media links

Citation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, July 1). 192: Outsourcing in academia, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3MC2R

191: Cleaning up contaminated medical treatment guidelines

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 13:00:00 +0200

James and Dan discuss James' newly funded 'Medical Evidence Project', whose goal is to find questionable medical evidence that is contaminating treatment guidelines.

Links

James' blog post from last year
The carthorse child blog post
The blog post announcing the project
A write up in Nature about the project

Other links

Citation

Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, June 4). 191: Cleaning up contaminated medical treatment guidelines Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/537BN

190: What happens when you pay reviewers?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 02 Apr 2025 20:00:00 +0200

We chat about two new studies that took different approaches for evaluating the impact of paying reviewers on peer review speed and quality.

Links

James' 450 movement proposal
The paper from Critical Care Medicine
The preprint from Biology Open

Other links

Citation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, April 2). 190: What happens when you pay reviewers?, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/PHQ2K

189: Crit me baby, one more time

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Sun, 02 Mar 2025 19:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss a recent piece that proposes a post-publication review process, which is triggered by citation counts. They also cover how an almetrics trigger could be alternatively used for a more immediate post-publication critique.

Links

The Chonicle piece by Andrew Gelman and Andrew King [Free to read with email registration]
The paper by Peder Isager and collegues on how to decide what papers we should replicate. Here is the preprint.
The ERROR project

Other links
Everything Hertz on Bluesky

Citation

Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, Mar 2). 189: Crit me baby, one more time, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3X5UR

188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 30 Jan 2025 09:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss a recent editorial which argues that double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity.

Links

The editorial from Christopher Mebane: https://doi.org/10.1093/etojnl/vgae046

Other links
Everything Hertz on Bluesky

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, Jan 30). Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6XS29

187: What started the replication crisis era?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Tue, 03 Dec 2024 11:45:00 +0100

We chat about the events that started the replication crisis in psychology and Dorothy Bishop's recent resignation from the Royal Society

Links

The resignation blogpost from Dorothy Bishop
The bluesky post from Sarah Weiten that asked the question, "If you had to cite an event that opened the "replication crisis" era, what would you point to?"
The "Year of Horrors" paper from Eric-Jan Wagenmakers

Other links
Everything Hertz on Bluesky

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Dec 3). 187: What started the replication crisis era?, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/EC7QH

186: Evaluating journal quality

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:00:00 +0100

In this episode we chat about a Nordic approach for evaluating the journal quality and how we should be teaching undergraduates to evaluate journal and article quality

Links

The Norwegian journal register
The Finnish journal register
Episode 22, where we played "Pokemon or Cholesterol medication?"

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Nov 13). 186: Evaluating journal quality, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KB37U

185: The Retraction

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 04 Oct 2024 07:00:00 +0200

We discuss the recent retraction of a paper that reported the effects of rigour-enhancing practices on replicability. We also cover James' new estimate that 1 out of 7 scientific papers are fake.

Links

The story about data integrity concerns in 130 women’s health papers
James' new preprint with the estimate that 1 out of 7 scientific papers are fake
The retracted paper in Nature Human Behavior by Protzko and coworkers
The Matters Arising article from Bak-Coleman and Devezer, who initially raised concerns about the paper from Protzko and coworkers.
The Everything Hertz merch store
The paper about puns/jokes in paper titles
The "Everything Hertz" paper from James
Dan's only paper with a pun in the title

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Oct 4). 185: The Retraction, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/528SF

184: A race to the bottom

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 05 Sep 2024 19:00:00 +0200

Open access articles have democratized the availability of scientific research, but are author-paid publication fees undermining the quality of science?

The preprint by Morgan and Smaldino - https://osf.io/preprints/osf/3ez9v
Paul Smaldino's text book - Modeling social behavior

Main edisode takeaways (AI-assisted summary)

There is a wide variability in the quality of papers published in gold open access journals and a wide variate of open access journals, some of which prioritise quality research
Diamond open access and green open access are alternative models to consider.
The publishing industry needs more transparency and mandatory reporting of data. The pressure to publish more can lead to a crowding out problem and a focus on quantity over quality.
Determining the quality of journals and papers is challenging, and there are varying levels of quality within different tiers of journals.
Fraudulent publishing practices, such as paper mills and fake papers, can be facilitated by the market for publishing.
The Publons service (R.I.P) and similar platforms can improve the transparency of peer review and provide a record of reviewers' contributions.
Society journals may offer a better publishing model as they have a reputation to maintain and are less likely to prioritize quantity over quality.

Other links

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Sept 5). 184: A race to the bottom, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3MUJV

183: Too beautiful to be true

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Sat, 03 Aug 2024 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss a paper describing a journal editor's efforts to receive data from authors who submitted papers with results that seemed a little too beautiful to be true

Main edisode takeaways (AI generated summary)

This editorial on the reproducibility crisis emphasizes the importance of providing raw data in scientific publications and highlights the need for transparency and accountability in the research process
The lack of oversight and the discrepancy between the amount of data required for scientific statements and what is often provided in academic publishing is a cause for concern.
Ensuring the integrity of scientific research requires the active involvement of editors, reviewers, and researchers in promoting transparency and upholding ethical standards. The scientific publishing process lacks oversight and accountability, leading to potential issues with the accuracy and trustworthiness of published papers.
Journals should prioritize maintaining high standards and ensuring that papers are thoroughly reviewed and validated before publication.
Changing behaviors within the scientific community, such as pledging to publish in open access journals, can promote positive change and improve research integrity.
There is a need for active maintenance and improvement of the systems and parameters of scientific research to prevent potential negative consequences.

Links for papers we mentioned

The Molecular Brain editorial by Miyakawa: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2
The STALT preprint: https://osf.io/6hste

Other links

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Aug 3). 183: Too beautiful to be true Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JF5MS

182: What practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Tue, 02 Jul 2024 19:00:00 +0200

Dan and James answer a listener question on what practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields.

Here are the main takeaways:

Keeping laboratory records and using electronic lab management software is beneficial practices biology that would benefit the behavioral sciences
The rate of pre-registration of meta-analysis in psychology is low, unlike other fields, which have a higher pre-registration rate. Here is the preprint on pre-registration of psychology meta-analyses that was mentioned: https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/627a4
Case studies (somewhat common in medicine) can provide valuable insights, especially when there is aggressive sampling and oversampling of single points
Double-blinded should not be adopted. as these can be challenging to implement effectively and may not always work as intended
Philosophers often (but not always) have a clear writing style and structure their arguments well, which can be enjoyable to read and should be more widely adopted
The publishing industry needs more innovation, particularly in the areas of peer review and editorial processes

Other links

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, July 2). 182: What practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields? Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XN8DT

181: Down the rabbit hole

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 03 Jun 2024 13:00:00 +0200

We discuss how following citation chains in psychology can often lead to unexpected places, and how this can contribute to unreplicable findings. We also discuss why team science has taken longer to catch on in psychology compared to other research fields.

Here is the preprint that we mentioned authored by Andrew Gelman and Nick Brown - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/ekmdf
Our episode with Nick Brown - https://everythinghertz.com/44

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2024, June 3) "181: Down the rabbit hole", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/C7F9N

180: Consortium peer reviews

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 02 May 2024 10:15:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss why innovation in scientific publishing is so hard, an emerging consortium peer review model, and a recent replication of the 'refilling soup bowl' study.

179: Discovery vs. maintenance

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 03 Apr 2024 06:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss how scientific research often neglects the importance of maintenance and long-term access for scientific tools and resources.

Other things they cover:

Should there be an annual limit on publications (even if this were somehow possible)?
The downsides of PhD by publication
The Gates Foundation's new Open Access policy

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2024, April 3) "179: Discovery vs. maintenance", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/KS8PV

178: Alerting researchers about retractions

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 29 Feb 2024 21:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss the Retractobot service, which emails authors about papers they've cited that have been retracted. What should authors do if they discover a paper they've cited has been retracted after they published their paper?

Other things they chat about

A listener question about including examiner's comments in thesis
The different types of retractions and thier impact
Why aren't versioning systems more common in scientific publishing?

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2024, February 29) "178: Alerting researchers about retractions", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/T8HRD

177: Plagiarism

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 31 Jan 2024 20:00:00 +0100

We discuss two recent plagiarism cases, one you've probably heard about and another that you probably haven't heard about if you're outside Norway. We also chat about the parallels between plagiarism and sports doping—would people reconsider academic dishonesty if they were reminded that future technology may catch them out?

Here are some of the takeaways from the episode (generated with the help of AI):

Plagiarism cases can range from minor academic practice issues to more serious instances of copying verbatim
The detection and punishment of plagiarism can vary depending on the context, such as academic journals or internal university issues.
The mindset and motivations behind plagiarism can differ between athletes and students, with athletes often driven by intense competition.
Long-term detectability and the potential consequences of cheating are factors that may discourage individuals from engaging in plagiarism.
Addressing plagiarism requires a balance between identifying genuine cases and avoiding ideological biases.

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2024, January 31) "177: Plagiarism", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/4M3F2

176: Tracking academic workloads

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 29 Dec 2023 20:00:00 +0100

We chat about a paper on the invisible workload of open science and why academics are so bad at tracking their workloads.

This episode was originally recorded in May 2023 in a hotel room just before our live recording of Episode 169, which is why we refer to the paper as a 'new' paper near the start of the episode.

Links

The paper on the invisible workload of open research
Our live and in-person episode with Sandra Matz on using big data to understand behavior

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, December 29) "176: Tracking academic workloads", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U84JC

175: Defending against the scientific dark arts

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 07 Dec 2023 14:00:00 +0100

We chat about a recent blogpost from Dorothy Bishop, in which she proposes a Master course that will provide training in fraud detection—what should such a course specifically teach and where would these people work to apply their training? We also discuss whether open science is a cult that has trouble seeing outward.

Links

The blog post on the Master in dark arts defence from Dorothy Bishop
The blog post on whether open science is a cult from Andrew Gelman

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, December 7) "175: Defending against the scientific dark arts", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/K2J7N

174: Smug missionaries with test tubes

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 01 Nov 2023 21:15:00 +0100

James proposes proposes a new type of consortium paper that could provide collaborative opportunities for researchers from countries that are underrepresented in published research papers. We also talk about computational reproducibility and paper publication bonuses.

Links
The paper from Steve Lindsay on computational reproducbility: A Plea to Psychology Professional Societies that Publish Journals: Assess Computational Reproducibility

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, October 31) "174: Smug missionaries with test tubes", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/FBHRZ

173: How do science journalists evaluate psychology papers?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Sun, 01 Oct 2023 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss a recent paper that investigated how science journalists evaluate psychology papers. To answer this question, the researchers presented science journalists with fictitious psychology studies and manipulated sample size, sample representativeness, p-values, and institutional prestige

Links

The paper on how science journalists evaluate psychology papers
The preprint paper on small samples
Laboratory Life by Bruno Latour

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, September 30) "173: How do science journalists evaluate psychology papers?", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/SG4BM

172: In defence of the discussion section

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 31 Aug 2023 21:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss a recent proposal to do away with discussion sections and suggest other stuff they'd like to get rid of from academic publishing.

Links

The paper on the proposed elimiation of the discussion section
The paper on machine readable hypothesis tests
Our episodes with Daniel Lakens
Our episode with Lisa DeBruine

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, August 31) "172: In defence of the discussion section", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/N3SFT

171: The easiest person to fool is yourself (with Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 20 Jul 2023 19:00:00 +0200

We chat with Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris about the science of cons and how we can we can avoid being taken in. We also cover the fate of the gorilla suit from the 'invisible gorilla' study, why scientists are especially prone to being fooled, plus more!

Buy Daniel and Christopher's new book, Nobody's fool, from your favourite bookseller here.

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, July 20) "171: The easiest person to fool is yourself (with Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/F8SMR

Special Guests: Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons.

170: Holy sheet

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 23 Jun 2023 15:45:00 +0200

We discuss evidence of data tampering in a series of experiments investigating dishonesty revealed via excel spreadsheet metadata and how traditional peer review is not suited for the detection of data tampering.

Links

Data colada post 1
The conceptual replication attempt in Guatemalan taxpayers
The paper on using caution when applying behavioural science to policy
Data colada post 2
The carthorse child

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, June 23) "170: Holy Sheet", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/DW2C7

169: Using big data to understand behavior (Live episode with Sandra Matz)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 31 May 2023 10:00:00 +0200

In our first ever live and in-person episode, we chat with Sandra Matz about the opportunities and challenges for using big data to understand human behavior

Links

Everybody lies book, by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz
A paper on "Born open" data

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, May 31) "169: Using big data to understand behavior (Live episode with Sandra Matz)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/JDXHF

Special Guest: Sandra Matz.

168: Meta-meta-science

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 27 Apr 2023 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss a new paper that reviews potential issues in metascience practices. They also talk about their upcoming live show in May in Frankfurt.

Links

Our upcoming show on May 8th, which will be a part of the at the 4th symposium on big data and research syntheses in psychology symposium to be held in Frankfurt, Germany
The paper we discuss from Mark Rubin
Peder Isager and team's paper on what to replicate

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, April 26) "168: Meta-meta-science", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/CSJ3X

167: Diluted effect sizes

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James chat about a new study that uses homeopathy studies to evaluate bias in biomedical research, a new-ish type of authorship fraud, and the potential for Chat GPT peer-review.

Links

The Chat GPT paper library tweet
The Homeopathy paper
The David Grimes paper
British dental journal paper on fraud
The AHealthcareZ YouTube channel
The FittDesign Studio YouTube channel

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, March 16) "167: Diluted effect sizes", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/H847F

166: Is science becoming less disruptive over time?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 25 Jan 2023 09:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss a recent paper that claims that science is becoming less disruptive over time and the suggested causes for this decline.

Links

Our prior episode, which discussed PhD defences
The paper on disruption in science
The news piece on the paper

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, January 25) "166: Is science becoming less disruptive over time?", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/X6YS5

165: Self-promotion

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 30 Dec 2022 09:00:00 +0100

Dan and James chat about self-promotion in academia, how they both wish they had doctoral defences (these aren't a thing in Australia), and replacing error bars with the letter "t".

Links and stuff

The now retracted paper with the error bars as "t"s
A direct link to the figure
The blog post on self-promotion, titled "The End of Decency: When Self-Promotion Goes Too Far" https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2022/12/09/why-too-much-public-self-promotion-academics-damaging-opinion

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, December 30) "165: Self-promotion", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U2N9Q

164: The great migration

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 28 Nov 2022 09:00:00 +0100

James and Dan discuss the recent migration of scientists from Twitter to Mastodon and the pros and cons of sharing the prior submission history of manuscripts

The Mastodon thread discussion the submission history policy in American Chemical Society Journals
The "Weekend at Bernies" film
Our new Mastodon account: @hertzpodcast@mas.to
James' leaf blower man haiku

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, November 28) "164: The great migration", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/ZBJQS

163: eLife's new peer review model

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 07 Nov 2022 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss eLife's new peer review model, in which they no longer make accept/reject decisions at the end of the peer-review process. Instead, papers invited for peer review will receive an assessment from eLife and the peer reviews will be shared on eLife's website. It's up to author if they would like revise their manuscript or publish their paper as the version of record.

eLife's announment
A editorial from Michael Eisen and team
Episode 122: Reoptimizing scientific publishing for the internet age (with Michael Eisen)
Episode 123: Authenticated anonymity (with Michael Eisen)
A paper describing p-rep

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, November 7) "163: eLife's new peer review model", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/XYBU5

162: Status bias in peer review

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:00:00 +0200

We chat about a recent preprint describing an experiment on the role of author status in peer-review, dodgy conference proceedings journals, and authorships for sale.

Links

James' blogpost on conference proceedings journals
The preprint/working paper on status bias

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, October 17) "162: Status bias in peer review", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 110.17605/OSF.IO/WX2A7

161: The memo (with Brian Nosek)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 12 Sep 2022 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James are joined by Brian Nosek (Co-founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science) to discuss the recent White House Office of Science Technology & Policy memo ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research. They also cover the implications of this memo for scientific publishing, as well as the mechanics of culture change in science.

Open Science Framework hits half a million users
The White house memo
Brian on Twitter

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, August 31) "161: The memo (with Brian Nosek)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/A7D86

Special Guest: Brian Nosek.

160: Whistleblowing

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:00:00 +0200

Dan and James share ten rules for whistleblowing academic misconduct.

The Safe Faculty Project website
SLAPP statues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, August 31) "160: Whistleblowing", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/NFUJQ

159: Peer review isn't working (with Saloni Dattani)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 15 Aug 2022 10:15:00 +0200

Dan and James are joined by Saloni Dattani for a chat about the history of peer review, a reimagination of what peer review could look like, what happens when you actually pay peer reviewers, peer reviewer specialisation, post publication peer review, annual paper limits for authors, automation in peer review, and Big Cheese.

Links

Works in Progress magazine
One of the many news stories about the Jarsberg cheese study
The actual study
Saloni's peer review piece
The F1000 format
Our episode with Elisabeth Bik
PCI registered reports
Saloni on Twitter

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, August 15) "159: Peer review isn't working (with Saloni Dattani)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/PZS97

Special Guest: Saloni Dattani.

158: Word limits

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 01 Aug 2022 08:00:00 +0200

By popular demand, Dan and James chat about journal word and page limits.They also the debate around a recent meta-analysis on nudge interventions.

Links

The PNAS nudge meta-analysis
The response letter
The paper on adjectives and adverbs in life sciences

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, August 1) "158: Word limits", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3DY9J

157: Limitations

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 11 Jul 2022 19:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss a new preprint that examined the types of limitations authors discuss in their published articles and whether these limitation types has changed over the past decade, especially in light of methodological reform efforts.

Links

The Genetic Lottery by Kathryn Paige Harden
The limitations preprint by Beth Clarke and collegues
Simine Vazire’s episode (also known as the one where Dan's wife starts going into labor)
The heartbeat paper from Galvez-Pol and collegues
Rand Wilcox and robust statistical methods
The tweet thread explainer from Beth Clarke

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, July 11) "157: Limitations", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/APCU3

156: Looking for seeders

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:30:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss a recent paper that concluded (again) that most researchers aren't compliant with their published data sharing statement and whether torrents (remember them?) are a viable alternative for sharing large datasets.

Links

The data request paper
The paper Dan and James co-authored led by Julian Koenig
Our episode with Henry Drysdale
Our episode with Chris Chambers
The meta-psychology journal

Other links
Everything Hertz on social media

Dan on twitter
James on twitter
Everything Hertz on twitter
Everything Hertz on Facebook Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!
$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, June 21) "156: Looking for seeders", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/4Q6JY

155: Don't you know who I am?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 30 May 2022 09:00:00 +0200

We chat about appeals to authority when responding to scientific critique, university ranking systems, Goodhart’s law (and its origin), and private institutional review boards.

Links

The history of Goodhart's law
The original psychadelics paper in Nature Medicine
The critique
The response to the critique

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, May 30) "155: Don't you know who I am?", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VXBKS

154: When the evidence is constructed around the narrative

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 09 May 2022 09:00:00 +0200

We chat about the Theranos story and the parallels with academic research, as well as Twitter's new owner and whether academics will actually leave the platform

Links

Mastodon (the band)
Elon Musk’s Onion article
The Dropout podcast
The Juicero
Bad Blood: The Final Chapter podcast by John Carreyrou
"Macho Man" Randy Savage

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, May 9) "154: When the evidence is constructed around the narrative", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/45Z2J

153: Shame shame shame

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 18 Apr 2022 09:45:00 +0200

We discuss a journal's new "wall of shame" page, which details unethical behaviours in an effort to discourage future misconduct. We also cover scientific ideas that won't die (but one idea that HAS died), and ECNP's "negative data" prize

The audio quality of this recording isn't up to our usual standards as we were both travelling and without our normal recording gear. We'll be back with our normal gear next episode!

Links

James’ letter to the editor/obituary on sympathovagal balance
The Mirror neuron book that Dan mentioned
The Wall of Shame page
An archive of the Wall of Shame page if it gets taken down
A story from 2014 on Paul Brooks and his Science Fraud website
Another story on Paul Brooks from Retraction Watch
News story: Missing Australian 'fraudster' could have cut off her own FOOT to trick police into thinking she is dead, cops say after body part is found
Best Negative Data Prize

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, April 18) "153: Shame shame shame", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YZ8VG

152: Sorry Not Sorry

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 04 Apr 2022 08:00:00 +0200

James and Dan chat about apologies vs. non-apologies, how to decide when to call it quits on a paper, and governments vetoing research proposals recommended by their own funding agencies

Links for stuff we mention

The tweet from Chris Jackson that started it all
Chris Jackson's Hertz episode on the cumulative advantage of academic capital
The Science Diagrams that Look Like Shitposts twitter account

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, April 4) "152: Sorry Not Sorry", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/WBVXZ

151: The dirty dozen

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 21 Mar 2022 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss a new preprint that details twelve p-hacking strategies and simulates their impact on false-positive rates. They also discuss the Great Resignation in academia and the academic job market.

Links

The twitter discussion on Associate editor pay kicked off by Eiko Fried
The p-hacking paper from Angelika Stefan and Felix Schönbrodt
The sample size preprint from Daniel Lakens

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, March 21) "151: The dirty dozen", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/KNM59

150: Why can't you do nothing?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 28 Feb 2022 08:00:00 +0100

We discuss the latest paper to seriously use the Kardashian index, which is the discrepancy between a scientist's publication record and social media following, and a listener question on whether original authors should get the last word when a comment on an article is submitted

Links

The paper on citation impact and social media visibility of Great Barrington and John Snow signatories for COVID-19 strategy
The Rapid Responses comments on the paper
The peer review reports for the paper
Send us an audio question!
About PubPeer

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, February 28) "150: Why can't you do nothing?", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7RPA4

149: Medical misinformation (with Rohin Francis)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 14 Feb 2022 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James chat with cardiologist Rohin Francis about medical misinformation and how he uses YouTube for science communication via his 'Medlife Crisis' channel.

Links to stuff that was mentioned:

Rohin's YouTube channel
Rohin on Twitter
Can you be so fit that you die video?
Why does getting in the water want to make you pee video
What is the stupidest nerve in the body video
Can you legally buy a human skeleton video
The Tibbies YouTube channel
Up and atom YouTube Channel
Belinda Carr YouTube Channel

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, February 14) "149: Medical misinformation (with Rohin Francis)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7RCMN

Special Guest: Rohin Francis.

148: Academic reference letters

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 31 Jan 2022 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James chat about why academic reference letters are terrible, a recent position statement on preprints, and whether the "great resignation" is also happening in academia.

Links to stuff that was mentioned:

The tweet from Dr. Eliza Bliss-Moreau on acedemic reference letter
The tweet from Gilad Feldman about the 100 references he's submitted in 2020 alone
The AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP joint position statement paper on medical publications, preprints, and peer review,

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, January 31) "148: Academic reference letters", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VZ67

147: The $7000 golden ticket

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 17 Jan 2022 08:00:00 +0100

We discuss the $7000 'accelerated publication' option for some Taylor & Francis journals that promises 3-5 week publication and a novel type of research fellowship.

Details for the accelerated publication
The New Science 2022 Summer Fellowship

We have new merch! Use the discount code 'METAL' to get 20% off (valid until January 31st, 2022).

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, January 17) "147: The $7000 golden ticket", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VNPBJ

146: Skills pay bills

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 27 Dec 2021 08:00:00 +0100

We answer a series of questions from a listener on whether to start a PhD, what to ask potential supervisors, the financial perils of being a PhD student, the future of higher education, the importance of skills, what keeps us going, and more.

Here are the specific questions that we answered in this episode (the background to these questions is shared in the episode):

Would you have any advice on how I can even decide whether to commence a PhD?
Are there any questions in particular that you think are important to ask prospective supervisors?
How do people make PhDs work financially? You are supposed to treat the degree like a regular 40 hour/ week job (and students commonly fail to do so). However, what full-time job pays ~$540 per week and expects this?! You are not supposed to work > 8 hours/ week outside of this?! I thought I could at least work 2-3 full days a week if I needed to.
Why do people generally leave academia, or not continue, after their PhD, despite obvious potential?
In what form do you think universities will be around in 5 and 10 years?
Are one-year progress reports from the PhD committee enough to stay on track?
What utility do PhDs hold inside and outside of academia? Apparently, skills matter more than a topic, and you have a better chance of getting a postdoc etc... if you have worked on a hot topic with a well-known supervisor.
How can one start the PhD prepared enough to finish it on time and earlier?
I am wondering what keeps academics going. I may be jaded, but lab environments don’t seem collaborative, and academics seem to be ruled by the admin people and hedge fund managers (or whoever). They also seem to make their money off students (i.e., the customer). I see a reverence for science and people trying to game the system, but not people wanting to seek truth in science. I now wonder how much of academia is motivated by pride, comfort, and not knowing what else to do. In my mind (and I am exaggerating a little), the PhD journey is coming to resemble an abusive relationship between the student and the uni, facilitated by the supervisor who hopefully gets something out of it. I assume it only gets worse from here.
I have been told that the PhD is the only program that offers solid research training and the ability to do your original research (something an industry job does not offer). Even if I accept those premises, I now wonder what it is all for.
Where do you both see yourselves in 5 and 10 years?
What keeps you both going?

We have new merch! Use the discount code 'METAL' to get 20% off (valid until January 31st, 2022).

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, December 27) "146: Skills pay bills", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/PUW6N

145: Our boat is sinking slightly slower

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:00:00 +0100

We discuss the results from the cancer biology reproducibility project, the inevitable comparisons with reproducibility in psychology, and authorship expectations for posting public datasets.

Links

The paper investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology
The paper on the impact of alphabetical order on career outcomes in economics (whose authorship order are determinedby alphabetical order
That human sports science paper that inlcluded a cranionotomy

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, December 13) "145: Our boat is sinking slightly slower", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/634QJ

144: The role of luck in academia

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 15 Nov 2021 08:00:00 +0100

If your child asked you whether they should pursue a career in academia, what would you say? We discuss this question plus three more quick-fire topics: the death of expertise, memorable presentations, and including internships in more graduate programs

Links

Get a 30% discount on a Scite subscription for a year, just use the coupon code EVERYTHINGHERTZ via this link
The “Remind me of this later” twitter bot
The Chase, Chance, and Creativity book

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, November 15) "144: The role of luck in academia", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BKAH6

Sponsored By:

Scite: Everything Hertz listeners can get 30% off for a year of access to scite, just use the promo code EVERYTHINGHERTZ at checkout Promo Code: EVERYTHINGHERTZ

143: A little less conversation, a little more action

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 01 Nov 2021 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss the differences between 'talk' and 'action' in scientific reform and why reforms are taking such a long time to be realised. They also chat about whether messy (but correct) code is worse than no code at all, and revisit the grad student who never said "no".

Other links

Get a 30% discount on a Scite subscription for a year, just use the coupon code EVERYTHINGHERTZ via this link
James' blog post on why he loves preprints
The grad student who never said "no" (archived) blog post

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, November 1) "143: A little less conversation, a little more action", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/X75SZ

Sponsored By:

Scite: Everything Hertz listeners can get 30% off for a year of access to scite, just use the promo code EVERYTHINGHERTZ at checkout Promo Code: EVERYTHINGHERTZ

142: Red flags in academia [Live episode]

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 18 Oct 2021 08:00:00 +0200

In this live episode, Dan and James discuss red flags in academia, in terms of research fields, papers, and individuals. Thanks to everyone that participated in this live event!

Links to stuff that was mentioned

Get a 30% discount on a Scite subscription for a year, just use the coupon code EVERYTHINGHERTZ via this link
The p-hacker app
Burro racing on Wikipedia

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, October 18) "142: Red flags in academia [Live episode]", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3YB47

Sponsored By:

Scite: Everything Hertz listeners can get 30% off for a year of access to scite, just use the promo code EVERYTHINGHERTZ at checkout Promo Code: EVERYTHINGHERTZ

141: Why we should diversify study samples (with Sakshi Ghai)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 04 Oct 2021 08:00:00 +0200

We chat with Sakshi Ghai (University of Cambridge) about why we should diversify sample diversity and retire the Western, educated, rich, industrialized and democratic (WEIRD) dichotomy in the behavioral sciences

Links to stuff we discuss:

Sakshi's piece in Nature Human Behavior
Many Labs 2 paper
The ‘helicopter' research piece
Joseph Heinrich’s recent book, The WEIRDest People in the World

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Music credits
Our outro music is by Lee Rosevere

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, September 20) "141: Why we should diversify study samples (with Sakshi Ghai)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/J9E6W

Special Guest: Sakshi Ghai.

140: You can’t buy cat biscuits with ‘thank you’ emails

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 20 Sep 2021 08:00:00 +0200

James proposes that peer review reports should be published as their own citable objects, provided that the manuscript author thinks that the peer review report is of sufficient quality and the peer reviewers agree

Other links and things we discuss

An update on James’ start up job
The American service industry
Dan’s first outing since the pandemic started
The villlage of Hell, in Norway
The villiage of Fucking (now changed to Fugging) in Austria
The Hertz long term archive on Open Science Framework
We’re up for doing a syllabus episodes that you can assign to your classes
Dan’s recent piece in Nature Human Behavior on replication projects for undergraduate research theses
What about a replication study as part of a PhD thesis?
The trope of, “future replications are needed’
Collaborative Replications and Education Project (CREP)
Daniel Lakens mentioning that his paper might be the most cited Frontiers article ever
How thorough should peer review be?
James' new articles isn't online yet, but he will pin it to his Twitter profile as soon as it is
The Julian Koenig-led paper James mentioned (that Dan and James are co-authors on)
The Psychophysiology liviing meta-analysis article

Other links

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Music credits
Our outro music is by Lee Rosevere

Episode citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, September 20) "140: You can’t buy cat biscuits with ‘thank you’ emails", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BW65N

139: Open science from a funder's perspective (with Ashley Farley)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 08:00:00 +0200

We chat with Ashley Farley about her background as an academic librarian, the underrecognised importance of copyright in academic publishing, and her work as a Program Officer at the Gates Foundation

An academic librarian’s perpsective on the importance of open reseasch
The importance of copyright in research and what it means signing over your copyright
The PDF crisis!
What does a program officer at a grant funding organsiation do?
Why should funding organisations care about open science?
Why open access is more than just about acacemic papers, but extends to posters and presentations
Why can't academics collectively decide to push back against the big publishers?
The difference between private funders vs. goverment funding agencies

Other links

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Music credits
Our outro music is by Lee Rosevere

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, September 6) "139: Open science from a funder's perspective (with Ashley Farley)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/FQXSZ

Special Guest: Ashley Farley.

138: Preprints in the time of coronavirus (with Michele Avissar-Whiting)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 16 Aug 2021 08:00:00 +0200

We chat with Michele Avissar-Whiting about her role as the Editor-in-chief of the Research Square preprint platform and how she weighs up the benefits and costs of potentially problematic preprints during a pandemic.

Notes, links, and stuff we cover:

The Journal Ghoul reference in the intro
Michele’s role as a the editor for a preprint server
How Research Square works
Weighing up the urgency of preprints vs. potential danger
The preprint-to- hype pipeline
The Scholarly Kitchen piece on knowledge democratization
Badges for preprints
The recent withdrawal of a preprint

Other links

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Music credits
Our outro music is by Lee Rosevere

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, August 16) "138: Preprints in the time of coronavirus (with Michele Avissar-Whiting)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/AU8PW

Special Guest: Michele Avissar-Whiting.

137: Ten rules for improving academic work-life balance

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 02 Aug 2021 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James share their thoughts on a recent paper that proposes ten rules for improving academic work-life balance for early career researchers and the figure from this paper that became a meme.

Here are the rules:

Long hours do not equal productive hours
Examine your options for flexible work practices
Set boundaries to establish your workplace and time
Commit to strategies that increase your efficiency and productivity
Have a long-term strategy to help with prioritization, and review it regularly
Make your health a priority
Regularly interact with family and friends
Make time for volunteer work or similar commitments that are important and meaningful to you
Seek out or help create peer and institutional support systems
Open a dialogue about the importance of work–life balance and advocate for systemic change

Dan mentioned an app he sometimes uses to track his time, called Timery.

Other links

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Music credits
Our outro music is by Lee Rosevere

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, August 2) "137: Ten rules for improving academic work-life balance", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7F3KN

136: Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewed journals?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 08:00:00 +0200

We discuss Journal Reviewer (journalreviewer.org), which is a website that provides a forum for researchers to share and rate their experiences with journal's peer review processes. We also cover how some journals negotiate the way in which their impact factors are calculated.

Links

The reference to James' mention of Dick Whittington
James’ RIOT science talk
Nichola's Raihani's tweet
https://journalreviewer.org/
The South Park Yelp episode

Other links

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Music credits
Our outro music is by Lee Rosevere

Episode citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, July 19) "136: Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewed journals?", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/5SH2Z

135: A loss of confidence

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 05 Jul 2021 08:00:00 +0200

Dan Quintana and James Heathers chat about well-known psychology studies that we've now lost confidence in due to replication failures and the role of auxiliary assumptions in hypothesis-driven research.

Other links

The reversals in psychology website
Anne Scheel and team's paper on whether you’re ready to test hypotheses
Homer Simpson burning bridges meme
The paper that suggests replications will make psychology too boring and nobody will want to study it
Daniel Lakens’ blog post on the hungry judges study

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Music credits
Our outro music is by Lee Rosevere

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, July 5) "135: A loss of confidence", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/GHKRC

Sponsored By:

Paperpile: Paperpile is the reference manager you’ll actually want to use. Paperpile works seamlessly with Google Docs and Word for inserting citations and generating references lists. Paperpile’s iOS and Android apps also make it easy to add and read papers on the go. Everything Hertz listeners get 20% off a Paperpile subscription with the coupon code "hertz" (valid until January 1st, 2022). Promo Code: hertz

134: Paywalled questionnaires

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 21 Jun 2021 08:00:00 +0200

We discuss a recent retraction triggered by the authors not paying a copyright fee to use a questionnaire (that also happened to be critical of the original questionnaire).

Links for stuff that we mention:

The paper that was retracted for not getting the correct licence for a questionnaire
The retraction notice for this paper
The Spectrum piece that discusses this story
Why most online recipes begin with some ridiculous story
Libkey, which provides one-click access to papers via your institutional library subscription

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Music credits
Our outro music is by Lee Rosevere

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, June 21) "134: Paywalled questionnaires", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/76KTY

Sponsored By:

Paperpile: Paperpile is the reference manager you’ll actually want to use. Paperpile works seamlessly with Google Docs and Word for inserting citations and generating references lists. Paperpile’s iOS and Android apps also make it easy to add and read papers on the go. Everything Hertz listeners get 20% off a Paperpile subscription with the coupon code "hertz" (valid until January 1st, 2022). Promo Code: hertz

133: Manuscript submission fees

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 07 Jun 2021 08:00:00 +0200

Some journals use nominal manuscript submission fees to discourage frivolous submissions. However, it has been suggested that increasing submission fees could reduce article processing charges. Dan and James discuss this proposal, along with the recently released code of conduct for scientific integrity from the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences.

James’ Atlantic piece
Submission fees for mansucripts
The scholarly kitchen blog post
We have a new partner: Paperpile!
Our PeerJ episode with Jason Hoyt
The code of conduct for scientific integrity from the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences

Everything Hertz on social media

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Music credits
Our outro music is by Lee Rosevere

Episode citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, June 7) "133: Manuscript submission fees", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/5MAQN

Sponsored By:

Paperpile: Paperpile is the reference manager you’ll actually want to use. Paperpile works seamlessly with Google Docs and Word for inserting citations and generating references lists. Paperpile’s iOS and Android apps also make it easy to add and read papers on the go. Everything Hertz listeners get 20% off a Paperpile subscription with the coupon code "hertz" (valid until January 1st, 2022). Promo Code: hertz

132: Post-pandemic academia

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 17 May 2021 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss how academia should operate in a post-pandemic world. What pandemic practices should we keep and what should we abandon?

Links and details:

Quiz: Norwegian metal band or Norwegian town?
Things are slowly getting back to normal in some (but not alI) countries. So what academic practices and routines should we keep from the pandemic and what should we kiss goodbye?
Would it be possible to be physically located at your local university but to be employed/educated at another university?
Video abstracts are now an option is some journals, here's an example
Presentations might be more convenient online, but it's hard to replicate a good poster session
What is the actual point of academic conferences?
The neuromatch academy https://academy.neuromatch.io/
The neuromatch academy paper in Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, May 17) "132: Post-pandemic academia", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/FAU7Z

131: Long live the overhead projector!

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 03 May 2021 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James answer listener audio questions on indirect costs for research grants, the mind/body problem, and why many academics aren't trained to teach. They also profess their love for the overhead projector

Some more details:

Should we require universities to justify overhead costs, like heating and electricity?
Overheads can inflate the costs of grants, some grants provide an additional percentage for overheads but others don’t allow this, which can eat into grants
Get to know the people in your local grant office!
Indirect costs at MIT
A primer on indirect costs and why they are important to MIT
Does it matter that we address the mind body problem in psychology?
On the teaching of the history and philosophy of science (or lack thereof) in psychology courses
Why aren’t academics better equipped to teach?
The 3Blue1Brown YouTube channel

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, May 3) "131: Long live the overhead projector!", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/8TFKC

130: Normalizing retractions (with Dorothy Bishop)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James chat with Dorothy Bishop (University of Oxford) about the importance of normalizing the retraction of scientific papers, publication ethics, and whether paper mills (companies that make fake papers at scale) are an issue in the psychological sciences

Here are some links and stuff we covered:

Dorothy's thoughts on how the adoption of open science practices has been progressing since we last had her on the show in June 2018
The European Research Council's new open access journal, which is free to publish in if you're ERC funded
Dan's proposal of something similar in a 2019 The Chronicle piece (free to read with email signup)
Dorothy's recent blogpost on publication ethics
The Society for Microbiology piece behind the blogpost
Our episode with Elisabeth Bik
Image manipulation in scientific papers
Why don't publishers have agreements with authors that if they discover something dodgy in papers the author can't sue them?
Retraction notices don't easily discriminate between fraud and mistakes, and this is one reason why that authors are so reluctant to have their work retracted
James' fictional paper mill story (based on real fraud), that he wrote with Otto Kalliokoski
Are paper mills a problem in psychology?
Dorothy's Oxford photo challenge

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, April 19) "130: Normalizing retractions (with Dorothy Bishop)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/HRXU2

Special Guest: Dorothy Bishop.

129: Transparency audits

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 05 Apr 2021 07:45:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss the recently proposed "transparency audit", why it received so much blowback, and the characteristics of successful reform schemes

The specifics...

The computational research integrity conference
The transparancy leaderboard proposed by Curate Science
Our episode with Chris Jackson, that James mentioned
What about a transparency leaderboard for instiutions?
What are the characteristics of grassroots reform schemes that worked?

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, April 5) "129: Transparency audits", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/JRNP8

128: How do you generate new research ideas?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 15 Mar 2021 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James chat about how they come up with new ideas, why everyone seems to be trying to monetise their hobbies, and why it's so hard for most labs to have a singular focus of research.

We had some problems with James' mic so the quality of his audio wasn't up our usual standard. To make up for this we've added one of our older bonus episodes at the end of this conventional episode (this begins at 54:18). These bonus episodes are typically only made available for our Professor Fancypants Patreon patrons, but now you'll get to hear one!

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, March 15) "128: How do you generate new research ideas?", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U79NW

127: Speak up or shut up?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 01 Mar 2021 08:00:00 +0100

We discuss when is the right time in your academic career to begin speaking up to critique your research field or whether the risk of retaliation means you should shut up and keep your head down. This was a recorded Clubhouse chat, which includes some audience interaction at the end.

Links and details:

Moin Syed's blogpost, which was the inspiration for this topic
The 'proper' letter to the editor critique vs. a social media critique
What about retaliation for speaking out?
Differences between industry and academia
Thank you to Yan, Louis, Evan for their contribitions to our chat!

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

126: The division of scientific labor (with Saloni Dattani)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:00:00 +0100

We have a wide-ranging chat with Saloni Dattani (Kings College London and University of Hong Kong) about the benefits of dividing scientific labor, the magazine she co-founded (Works in Progress) that shares novel ideas and stories of progress, and fighting online misinformation

Here are some links and other stuff we cover

Follow Saloni on Twitter: https://twitter.com/salonium
Why Saloni started the Works in Progress magazine
[Overleaf](overleaf.com), for writing papers in LaTeX
How science will benefit from the division of labour
Public writing vs. scientific writing
Why has behavioral science not been very useful in curbing the pandemic?
A paper suggested a link between digit ratio (2D:4D) and sex differences in COVID fatalities, and another paper debunking this claim
A paper suggesting baldness is a coronavirus risk factor, without controlling for age
Should peer-review be abolished altogether? Paper link
The Japanese mathematician who solved an "impossible" conjecture and posted the papers on his website
Reforms are more likely by work by chipping away at smaller problems, rather trying to fix everyting
Google dataset search https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/
The COVIDfaq.co website

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Buy our Merch here: https://everything-hertz-podcast.creator-spring.com/

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, February 15) "126: The division of scientific labor (with Saloni Dattani)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VJA4S

Special Guest: Saloni Dattani.

125: Upon reasonable request

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 01 Feb 2021 08:00:00 +0100

Dan has a blue-sky proposal to increase data sharing—that funders mandate scholars to store and analyse data on their servers for which the funder decides what constitutes a reasonable data request (among other benefits)

Other stuff covered:

We return with part 2 of "overrated/underrated/appropately rated", in which James throws nouns at Dan and he responds with whether these things are overrated, underrated, or appropately rated.
Joe Hilgard's blog post
Dan' proposal that funders should require all funded researchers to store and perform their analysis on a central server, which would make it easier to share data, and then the funder could decide what "upon reasonable request" means, not the reseacher or the instution
Long term vs. short term reform efforts

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, February 1) "125: Upon reasonable request ", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/HR5JA

124: From Ptolemy to Takeshi's Castle

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 18 Jan 2021 08:00:00 +0100

We discuss under which circumstances retracting decades-old articles is worth the time. We also chat about why LinkenIn is underrated (yes, really) and special journal issues are overrated.

A more specific list of topics and links:

We play a game of "overated/underated", in which Dan has a list of stuff that he asks James whether these things are overrated or underated (or appropiated rated)
Why LinkedIn is underated
Graphical abstracts are underrated
Online conferences are underrated
Authors should have the chance to wildly speculate (as long as it's marked as wild speculation)
Sourdough bread is so gorgeous that even hipsters can't ruin it
Special journal themes are overrated
Should we bother putting the energy into retracting old studies?
The retracted article that Eysenck co-authored, entitled “Coffee-Drinking and Personality as Factors in the Genesis of Cancer and Coronary Heart Disease”
THIS is Takeshi's Castle

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, January 18) "124: From Ptolemy to Takeshi's Castle", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/DG3PY

123: Authenticated anonymity (with Michael Eisen)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:00:00 +0100

Part two of our chat with Michael Eisen (eLife Editor-in-Cheif), in which we discuss the pros and cons of collaborative peer review, journal submission interfaces, Michael's take on James' proposal that peer reviewers should be paid $450 dollars, why negative comments on peer reviews need to be normalised, plus much more.

Some more details:

The pros and cons of collaborative peer review (in which all peer reviewers discuss the paper after all individual peer reviews have been submitted
How technology can constrain journal operations
The strange engineered delay in paper reviews (I doesn't take 2-3 weeks to review a paper)
Michael's proposal for a system in which people can nominate they have time in the near future to review a paper and then papers can be sent to them so they're rapidly reviewed
Journal submission interfaces
Michael's take on paying peer reviewers
Who owns peer reviews?
Would negative (anonomous or not) comments on an open peer review report penalise authors in the future?
Every paper gets negative peer-review comments, this doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad paper
Michael proposes an explicit "speculation" section for papers, where authors get free reign to basically say whatever they want

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Special Guest: Michael Eisen.

Sponsored By:

Scite: Scite is a new tool that helps researchers quickly see how a research paper has been cited and if it has been supported or disputed by subsequent research. Instead of just a list of titles, Scite shows you an excerpt of text from each citing article so you can easily see what each citing paper says. As an Everything Hertz listener, you can get 30% off their premium package for 12 months, which gives you access to unlimited reports and reference checks. Use the coupon code "HERTZ" to claim this offer. This offer expires on Jan 1, 2021. Promo Code: HERTZ

122: Reoptimizing scientific publishing for the internet age (with Michael Eisen)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 21 Dec 2020 07:45:00 +0100

The internet should have transformed science publishing, but it didn't. We chat with Michael Eisen (Editor-in-Chief of eLife) about reoptimizing scientific publishing and peer review for the internet age.

Here what we cover and some links:

How Michael co-founded PLOS
The book Dan mentioned on the history of the scientific journal
Why did eLife launch? What did it offer that other journals didn't?
Nature's recently proposed $11k article processing fee proposal
eLife's new "author-driven publishing" approach, in which all submitted papers have to be posted as preprints
Part two of our conversation will be released on January 4, 2021

- Five dollars a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, December 21) "122: Reoptimizing scientific publishing for the internet age (with Michael Eisen)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/USYFC

Special Guest: Michael Eisen.

Sponsored By:

Scite: Scite is a new tool that helps researchers quickly see how a research paper has been cited and if it has been supported or disputed by subsequent research. Instead of just a list of titles, Scite shows you an excerpt of text from each citing article so you can easily see what each citing paper says. As an Everything Hertz listener, you can get 30% off their premium package for 12 months, which gives you access to unlimited reports and reference checks. Use the coupon code "HERTZ" to claim this offer. This offer expires on Jan 1, 2021. Promo Code: HERTZ

121: Transparent peer review

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 07 Dec 2020 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss the pros and cons of transparent peer-review, in which peer review reports are published alongside manuscripts, as a keynote feature at the recent Munin Conference on scholarly publishing.

Here's what they cover and some links:

Watch the video of this episode on the Everything Hertz YouTube page
What is transparent peer-review?
The permanancy of open peer review reports
CLOCKSS provides a sustainable dark archive to ensure the long-term survival of Web-based scholarly content
Open peer reviews provide additional info for historians
What changes when you know that your review is going to be public?
A Motte-and-bailey castle
An update and summary of the 450 movement
Involving patients/user representatives in the peer review and disemination process
The GRIM test
What about the publication of peer review reports for papers that are rejected?
The mega-analysis paper that Dan and James were co-authors on
Thank you to the organisers of the Munin conference for the invitation!

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

One dollar a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- Five dollars a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, December 7) "121: Transparent peer review", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/S2948

Sponsored By:

Scite: Scite is a new tool that helps researchers quickly see how a research paper has been cited and if it has been supported or disputed by subsequent research. Instead of just a list of titles, Scite shows you an excerpt of text from each citing article so you can easily see what each citing paper says. As an Everything Hertz listener, you can get 30% off their premium package for 12 months, which gives you access to unlimited reports and reference checks. Use the coupon code "HERTZ" to claim this offer. This offer expires on Jan 1, 2021. Promo Code: HERTZ

120: How false beliefs spread in science (with Cailin O'Connor)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 16 Nov 2020 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James chat with Cailin O'Connor (University of California, Irvine) about the how false beliefs spread in science and remedies for this issue

Here's what they cover:

Why should psychologist scientists learn about the philosophy of science?
Cailin's new preprint on error propogation that she co-authrored
Boyd and Richerson's "Culture and the Evolutionary Process" book
Episode 91 with Kristin Sainani that discussed magnitude based inference
Christie Aschwanden on Magnitude Based Inference
The Misinformation age, co-authored by Cailin
Cailin's paper on the retraction of scientific papers
With Scite, you can be alterted whether a given paper has been retracted
Where should you start if you're interested in the philosophy of science?
Science as social knowledge, by Helen Longino
Cailin's on Twitter and you should also check out her website

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, November 16) "120: How false beliefs spread in science (with Cailin O'Connor", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6S8TB

Special Guest: Cailin O'Connor.

Sponsored By:

Scite: Scite is a new tool that helps researchers quickly see how a research paper has been cited and if it has been supported or disputed by subsequent research. Instead of just a list of titles, Scite shows you an excerpt of text from each citing article so you can easily see what each citing paper says. As an Everything Hertz listener, you can get 30% off their premium package for 12 months, which gives you access to unlimited reports and reference checks. Use the coupon code "HERTZ" to claim this offer. This offer expires on Jan 1, 2021. Promo Code: HERTZ

119: Rules of thumb

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 02 Nov 2020 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss how rules of thumbs in science, such as those often applied to sample sizes and effect sizes, lead to mindless research evaluation.

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, November 2) "119: Rules of thumb", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UMXR7

Sponsored By:

Scite: Scite is a new tool that helps researchers quickly see how a research paper has been cited and if it has been supported or disputed by subsequent research. Instead of just a list of titles, Scite shows you an excerpt of text from each citing article so you can easily see what each citing paper says. As an Everything Hertz listener, you can get 30% off their premium package for 12 months, which gives you access to unlimited reports and reference checks. Use the coupon code "HERTZ" to claim this offer. This offer expires on Jan 1, 2021. Promo Code: HERTZ

118: Evidence-free gatekeeping

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 19 Oct 2020 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James answer audio listener questions on the worst review comments they've received (and how the responded), their thoughts on the current state of preprints, and how institutional prestige influences researcher evaluations.

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, October 19) "118: Evidence-free gatekeeping", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/RAVXK

117: How we peer-review papers

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 05 Oct 2020 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James choose a preprint and walk through how they would peer-review it. James also provides an update on his recent proposal that scientists should be paid for performing peer reviews for journals published by for-profit companies

Specific links and topics:

An update on the 450 movement, which proposes that scientists should be paid for performing peer reviews for journals published by for-profit companies
You should follow Overly Honest Editor on Twitter
The Volkswagen fellowships
Emma Mills, from Lancaster University, asks us how we review papers
We review this paper: "Direct perception of other people’s heart rate"
The tweet from Maarten van Smeeden on data simulation

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, October 5) "117: How we peer-review papers", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7JHFP

116: In my opinion

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 21 Sep 2020 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James chat about a recent twitter discussion on open science funding and the benefits of Editors sharing their opinions online. James also shares three project proposals that he thinks deserves funding, which Dan ranks.

Other stuff...

The Twitter thread from Tage Rai on conflicts of interest in funding on science
The Raytheon Amphitheater at Northeastern University
How Nature Human Behavior evaluates your mansucripts, from episode 105.
Good and bad experiences with Frontiers journals
A contract for getting paid for reviews
Get access to our Patreon newsletter
The peer-review process at eLife
James' three grant proposal ideas
The taxi story [Story in Norwegian but Google translate does a good enough job]
PsycoPy
The eyetracker that's 100x cheaper than commercial eyetrackers
Ads in R package load up messages
Chat about this episode on the Git Gud Science Discord server

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, September 21) "116: In my opinion", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/WT46Z

115: A modest proposal

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 07 Sep 2020 08:00:00 +0200

We discuss James' recent proposal that scientists should be paid for performing peer review for journals published by for-profit companies—$450, to be precise. Dan also puts forward three meta-science projects that he thinks are worth funding.

More details

James' tweet proposing peer review should be compensated
Since recording this episode, James has set up the @450Movement twitter account
Also see James' blog post
The Collabra Psychology journal
Did the folks that co-authored the "redefine statistical sigificance" paper actually go on to follow their own recommendations?
Would high financial compensation of people on job search panels lead to better quality hires?
A tool that would automatically scrape the email addresses the of authors of papers you cite would make life easier for asking for feedback and providing review recommendations.
I'm curious as to whether people are reading the show notes. If you are reading this and want a Hertz mug, the first person to send @hertzpodcast a tweet saying they read the show notes will get a free mug
Kristoffer Magnusson's statstics art
Join the Git Gud Science Discord by following this link: https://discord.gg/s8MN3gA

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

- Save 16% on either tier if you pay annually!

Episode citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, September 7) "115: A modest proposal", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/4ZQ2E

114: Diversity in science (with Jess Wade)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:00:00 +0200

We chat with Jess Wade (Imperial College London) about diversity issues in science, including her work increasing the profile of underrepresented scientists on Wikipedia and on getting more young women into science.

Here's what we cover:

Jess' Wikipedia page
Inferior, by Angela Saini
What's involved when making a bio page?
The "notability" criteria for adding a scientist's bio on wikipedia
Listen to Wikipedia grow on Hatnote
Don't write your own page, even under a psuedonym.
What's the best way to get girls into science and engineering?
The lack of diversity in science award winners
Follow Jess on Twitter!
The opportunuties provided by social media
Using social media to scope out new labs

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, August 16) "114: Diversity in Science (with Jess Wade)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/A6VMU

Special Guest: Jess Wade.

113: Citation needed

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 03 Aug 2020 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss whether scientists should spend more time creating and editing Wikipedia articles. They also chat about how they read scientific articles and the heuristics they use to help decide whether a paper's worth their time.

Here are some more details and links:

Send in your audio questions here
How does James read so much and what tips do Dan and James have for reading papers?
The Stork paper recommendation service
How James and Dan rapidly judge whether a paper is worth the time to read
The benefit of a memorable paper title
Peer review forces you to read papers carefully
James screens a few papers for further reading on the spot based on their titles
What is the role of Wikipedia in science communication and education?
Jess Wade's project advocating for better representation of female scientists on Wikipedia
Wikipedia articles vs. textbooks
Do we even need textbooks in psychology?
The Biological Psychology wiki textbook is a ghost town
Using the R bookdown package for online books

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, August 3) "113: Citation needed", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3D6YJ

112: Leaving academia

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James chat about James' new industry job, why he quit academia, the biggest differences between academia and industry, and why it's crucial for early career researchers to have a plan B.

James new industry job
James' medium blog post
Having a plan B (and plan C) in academia
Using consulting a bridge to a full-time industry job
How to get an industry job
The role of grant success in academia
More research is now open access than not
Get 20% off our merch by using the promo code "AUGUST"
It's now easier to not be employed in academia but still contribute to academia
The NBA bubble
The Oura ring
Differences in work/life balance between academia and industry

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Cite this episode
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, July 27) "112: Leaving academia", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/DAZ7S

111: The cumulative advantage of academic capital (with Chris Jackson)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 06 Jul 2020 08:00:00 +0200

We chat with Chris Jackson (Imperial College, London) about the "Matthew Effect" in academia, how we can improve work/balance, and whether we should stop citing shitty people.

Here's more stuff we cover:

Chris climbed the world's most dangerous volcano for a BBC show
Chris' email signature
Having a code of conduct for your lab
Work/life balance in academia
Are things worse in academia compared to other desk jobs?
How Chris co-founded "EarthArxiv", a preprint server for the earth sciences
The point/counterpoint article format (here is an example)
Open science in the geosciences
Requesting data from authors
Follow Chris on Twitter
Issues with bibliometrics
Should we stop citing shitty people?
The long wait to get your work expenses reiumbursed

Other links

Dan on twitter
James on [twitter]((https://twitter.com/jamesheathers)
Everything Hertz on twitter
Everything Hertz on [Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Cite this episode
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, July 6) "111: The cumulative advantage of academic capital (with Chris Jackson)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/KJ76G

Special Guest: Chris Jackson.

Sponsored By:

Prolific: Prolific helps researchers find research participants on demand, with a pool of 75,000 active participants in North America and Europe. Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz Promo Code: everythinghertz

110: Red flags for errors in papers

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:00:00 +0200

We answer a listener question on identifying red flags for errors in papers. Is there a way to better equip peer-reviewers for spotting errors and suspicious data?

Sponsored By:

Prolific: Prolific helps researchers find research participants on demand, with a pool of 75,000 active participants in North America and Europe. Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz Promo Code: everythinghertz

109: Open scientific publishing [Live episode]

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 01 Jun 2020 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James recorded a live episode on open publishing as part of the Open Publishing Fest. They also ran a survey (from start to finish) during the course of the episode on the public's perception of open scientific publishing and discuss the results.

Here are more stuff they covered, plus links!

The Open Publishing Fest
We collected data LIVE thanks to Prolific! Go to prolific.co/everythinghertz to get $50 worth of credit for just $1
How to build a low cost book scanner
A prepreprint repository for African researchers
What is the role of "niche" preprint servers vs. general preprint servers?
Is there a discoverability crisis?
Detailed literature search is HARD
The Octopus publishing platform
We discuss the results of our real-time survey on the public's perception of open publishing
Some university have set up a 'data office', to which data requests are sent to (instead of the author). Is this a good idea?
Are people really doing that many coronavirus studies?

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

We have a Merch store too, where you can pick up some Hertz gear.

Cite this episode
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, June 1) "109: Open scientific publishing [live episode]", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/AT2XH

Sponsored By:

Prolific: Prolific helps researchers find research participants on demand, with a pool of 75,000 active participants in North America and Europe. Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz Promo Code: everythinghertz

108: Requiem for a Screen

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 18 May 2020 08:00:00 +0200

We discuss the recent claim that screen time is more harmful than heroin and whether psychological science is a crisis-ready discipline

Other stuff we cover:

Dan's adjustment to a second kid
The "Psychological science is not yet a crisis ready discipline" preprint
The Twitter thread from Rickard Carlsson
There is a contimuum of evidence for psychological science's use in a crisis
Belgian Officials: To Save Country's Potato Industry, Belgians Must Eat More Fries
Our episode with Amy Orben
Screen time has apparenty worse effects than heroin use on wellbeing
Are we better off without press releases?

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, May 18) "108: Requiem for a screen", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BCKMS

Sponsored By:

Prolific: Prolific helps researchers find research participants on demand, with a pool of 75,000 active participants in North America and Europe. Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz Promo Code: everythinghertz

107: Memes, TikTok, and science communication (with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 04 May 2020 08:00:00 +0200

We chat with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti (Chapman University, USA) about the role of memes and emerging social media in communicating science and statistics.

Stuff we cover + links:

Why Chelsea uses memes and social media for science communication
Chelsea's use of TikTok
Chelsea's TikTok profile
Chelsea's Instagram profile
How much time should you spend on science communication vs. science research?
What Twitch is and how this can be used by academics
Chelsea's Twitch profile
Dan's livestream of him writing a paper
Chelsea's profile on YouTube
Custom Stats themed Quiplash Game Codes: (JNL-HWDN) (DJM-ZDES)
Is Instagram worth it for Science communication?
NeuralNetMemes: https://instagram.com/neuralnetmemes/?hl=en
Have statistical software packages become too easy?
Chelsea's statisical consultancy service
brms package in R (bayesian regression): https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/brms/index.html
The JASP stats package
The Phantom Tollbooth book
The lady tasting tea book

Other links

Chelsea on twitter
[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, May 4) "107: Memes, TikTok, and science communication (with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], Retrieved from https://osf.io/8dywb/

Special Guest: Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti.

Sponsored By:

Prolific: Prolific helps researchers find research participants on demand, with a pool of 75,000 active participants in North America and Europe. Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz Promo Code: everythinghertz

106: Science on the run

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 20 Apr 2020 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss whether getting rapid outcomes to address the pandemic is worth the increased risk of mistakes—how can researchers perform research that is both urgent and accurate?

Here's other stuff they discuss...

Whiskey as a hobby
James' pandemic tips
How publication practices have changed during the pandemic
The news article that stated bioRxiv papers are peer-reviewed
Peer review during a pandemic
The impact of the corona virus on employment in academia
Bad peer-reviewed studies do more damage than bad preprints
Preprints that require permission for citation
Is there a need for the rapid dissemination of psych research, at the risk of making errors?
Hertz merchandise

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, April 20) "106: Science on the Run)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], Retrieved from https://osf.io/7ydvz/

Sponsored By:

Prolific: Prolific helps researchers find research participants on demand, with a pool of 75,000 active participants in North America and Europe. Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz Promo Code: everythinghertz

105: Tell it like it is (with Marike Schiffer)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 06 Apr 2020 08:00:00 +0200

We chat with Marike Schiffer, who is a Senior Editor at Nature Human Behavior, about her journal's push to increase reproducibility in the behavioral sciences. She also shares how her team evaluates manuscripts and some common misunderstandings about scientific publishing.

Here's what else we cover:

Marike's experiencing making the switch from researcher to full-time editorial work
The day-to-day tasks of an editor
The Manifesto for reproducible science
Why has Nature Human Behavior made such a big push towards reproducibility
The benefits of transparent peer review comments
The importance of posting rich datasets
Transparency in how journals deal with manuscripts
The Editorial describing how Nature Human Behavior deals with manuscripts
The future of scientific publishing
Audio versions of papers
Two common misunderstanding that scientists have about scientific publishing
Dan's synthetic data paper

Other links

Marike on twitter
[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, April 6) "105: Tell it like it is (with Marike Schiffer)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U9QRN, Retrieved from https://osf.io/u9qrn/

Special Guest: Marike Schiffer.

Sponsored By:

Prolific: Prolific helps researchers find research participants on demand, with a pool of 75,000 active participants in North America and Europe. Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz Promo Code: everythinghertz

104: Now we'll discover which meetings could've been emails

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss the COVID-19 pandemic and how it's impacting academia

Other things they discuss:

Roy and HG's gymnastics commentary from the Sydney 2000 olympics
News tickers and collective anxiety
How will cancelled talks and events influence our careers?
Use the promo code "everythinghertz" to get $50 in free Prolific credit that you can use to recruit online participants for your next study, more details here
Using ‘Second Life’ for conferences
Tools for working from home
"It’s just a cough" skit

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, March 2) "Now we'll discover which meetings could've been emails", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/DHGR6, Retrieved from https://osf.io/dhgr6/

Sponsored By:

Prolific: Prolific helps researchers find research participants on demand, with a pool of 75,000 active participants in North America and Europe. Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz Promo Code: everythinghertz

103: Swiping right

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 02 Mar 2020 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss rejection in academia and emerging science communication mediums. Here are a few links and other things they cover:

The main university of Sydney bar has closed because all the youth are playing Fortnite and on TikTok
How should you respond to rejection?
The rejected paper on fasting during Ramadan and cognitive control
What if there was Tinder for manuscript submission?
Josh’s tweet about citations in Wikipedia
Grant lotteries
The Steven Bradbury reference
The use of TikTok for science communication
Dan and James argues about whether blogs or twitter threads are better
Disney princesses
The Corona virus and preprints
Using instagram for scicomm
Should twitter remove the ‘likes’ and follower counts?
Billie Eilish sampling the sound traffic lights make in Sydney
The Boston train pigeon

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, March 2) "Swiping right", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/5XR2F, Retrieved from https://osf.io/5xr2f/

Sponsored By:

Prolific: Prolific helps researchers find research participants on demand, with a pool of 75,000 active participants in North America and Europe. Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz Promo Code: everythinghertz

102: Master of none

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 17 Feb 2020 08:00:00 +0100

Should research scientists build their knowledge and skillset broadly at the risk of being a master of none? Dan and James discuss this, along with a recent editorial on the use of Twitter in academia.

Here's other stuff they cover:

Some tools that Dan's using right now: BioRender, Canva, Slack, 99designs, and Notion.
Dan pre-registers a prediction
Herchandise! Use the code "EH102" to get a 20% discount on Hertz merchandise (valid until March 2, 2020)
The k-index editorial
Roger Ebert's statue
James wanted a picture of this fish in the show notes, for some reason

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, February 17) "Master of none", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3A9TN, Retrieved from https://osf.io/3a9tn/

Sponsored By:

Prolific: Prolific helps researchers find research participants on demand, with a pool of 75,000 active participants in North America and Europe. Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz Promo Code: everythinghertz

101: Punishing research misconduct

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 03 Feb 2020 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James cover a new paper which discusses whether research misconduct should be criminalised. If so, where do we draw the line and who should investigate these cases?

Here's an episode overview and links to stuff we mentioned:

We’re a pop science podcast, apparently
Elizabeth Bik’s wikipedia page
Elizabeth’s Patreon page
The original consortium letter
The apology letter from the APS
The “love of science” tweet
How James got into science
Tal’s “science is not a jobs program” tweet
The 'Should research misconduct be criminalised?' article
Professor charged with spending $96k in grant money in strip clubs
Professor with huge taxi bill (story is Norwegian, but Google translate does a decent job). The professor has agreed to pay back all trips between home and the office (about $11,000 USD
Data From A Top Geneticist’s Lab Was Flagged To A Major UK University. It Didn’t Launch A Formal Investigation Until A Decade Later.
The inaugural “get in the sea” nomination goes to the Editorial office described in this tweet

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Get 10% off Everything Hertz merch, like mugs, stickers, shirts, and hoodies, by using the discount code "HERTZ101" at our online store. Discount code valid until February 17, 2020.

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, February 3) "Punishing research misconduct", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/Q86AK, Retrieved from https://osf.io/q86ak/

Sponsored By:

Prolific: Prolific helps researchers find research participants on demand, with a pool of 75,000 active participants in North America and Europe. Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz Promo Code: everythinghertz

100: Hundredth episode live special (with Daniel Lakens, Amy Orben, and Chris Chambers)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 27 Jan 2020 08:00:00 +0100

To celebrate our 100th episode, which we video-streamed live, Dan and James were joined by three special guests: Daniel Lakens, Amy Orben, and Chris Chambers.

Here's what they covered in this episode:

James and Dan share their favourite episodes
The power of the Twitter direct message
Daniel Lakens joins us to discuss his recent work on helping people make better statistical decisions
Can you create cross-discipline effect size guidelines?
What would Jacob Cohen say if we could bring him back to life?
Academic backup career plans
Our new partnership with Prolific
James' piece on not treating your research participants like cattle
Amy Orben joins us to discuss multiverse analysis and the Reproducibilitea community
The Latin Modern Roman font
We speak with Chris Chambers and get an update of what's happening with Registered reports

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

This episode was brought you by Prolific, who is giving away $50 to podcast listeners who want to give online sampling a go! Redeem the free credit here: https://www.prolific.co/everythinghertz

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link

Special Guests: Amy Orben, Chris Chambers, and Daniel Lakens.

Sponsored By:

Prolific: Prolific helps researchers find research participants on demand, with a pool of 75,000 active participants in North America and Europe. Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz Promo Code: everythinghertz

99: Science advocacy

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 06 Jan 2020 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James answer a listener question on science advocacy. Is this an activity that all scientists should do, and if so, how much advocacy work should we be doing?

Here's other stuff they cover and links to stuff they mention:

James’ thoughts on thanksgiving
James’s hot mic tweet
The Tom Bartlett story in the Chronicle about the criminologist accused of cooking the books
The SCORE DAPRA project
A listener question from Crystal Steltenpohl: What is a scientist’s role in advocacy?
Julieanne Smolinski piece on Hollywood diets
Sunbathe your arsehole, for wellness
Dealing with bad science on Facebook
Feedback from an older episode on statistical errors in sports science

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, January 6) "Science advocacy", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/8R5ZD, Retrieved from https://osf.io/8r5zd/

98: Episode titles are redundant, at best (with Sophia Crüwell)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 16 Dec 2019 08:00:00 +0100

We chat with Sophia Crüwell (Meta-Research Innovation Center Berlin) about pre-registration and her recent work introducing pre-registration templates for cognitive modelling research.

Here's what we cover and some links:

Sophia’s PhD research
Sophia’s recent preprint: Preregistration in Complex Contexts: A Preregistration Template for the Application of Cognitive Models
The first version of the pre-print titled, preregistration is redundant, at best
The updated version of the preprint titled, "Is preregistration worthwhile?"
The Bayesian Spectacles blogpost on the first version of the pre-print
Data simulation from former guest Lisa DeBruine
The latest with reproducibilitea
The cargo cult science talk

Other links

Sophia on twitter
[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, December 16) "Episode titles are redundant, at best (with Sophia Crüwell)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/R942W, Retrieved from https://osf.io/r942w/

Special Guest: Sophia Crüwell.

97: Slow science

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 02 Dec 2019 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss the concept of "slow science", which has been proposed in order to improve the quality of scientific research and create a more sustainable work environment.

Here's what they cover in this episode

Thank you patrons day!
Social media algorithms reward outrage, not quality of substance
A paper on slow science from Uta Frith, which includes a proposal of publication limits
Is information overload really a problem?
The META platform for a weekly research digest
Would reducing the volume of publications really improve quality?
The working paper that simulated the quality vs. quantity question
The slow professor book https://utorontopress.com/ca/the-slow-professor-3
Michael Frank’s paper on N-best evaluation
Some institutions are now screening papers before submission to check for errors

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, December 2) "Slow Science", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/XEU42, Retrieved from https://osf.io/xeu42/

96: The chaotic state of doctoral research

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 18 Nov 2019 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss the results of this year's Nature survey of PhD students. Despite a majority of students reporting general satisfaction with their decision to undertake a PhD, many described a sense of uncertainty, harassment in the lab, and gruelling work hours.

Things they discuss...

James met an Australian member of parliament and won a commendation from Sense under Science
The Doing Good symposium
The Nature PhD survey
Bloat in academia
What people like the most about being a PhD student
Are we just not hearing that much from people who are having a good time?
Financial pressure in PhDs
Harassment and discrimination in PhD programs
Alternative academic careers
James' cat whisker collection
South Korean kids turn one when they’re born

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, November 18) "The chaotic state of doctoral research", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/CDZRA, Retrieved from https://osf.io/cdzra/

95: All good presentations are alike; each bad presentation is bad in its own way

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 04 Nov 2019 08:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss why academia tolerates bad presentations and the strange distrust of polished presentations.

Here's what else they discuss...

James had a Filipino feast https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/1188582859528949766?s=20
We’re approaching 100 episodes!
ReproducibiliTea is spreading worldwide!
Why do some people not trust polished presentations?
The Mike Morrison episode on the Better Poster
The “I want a refund for a bad presentation” blog post
What does James consider a ‘good’ presentation?
Conference apps
Why don’t we teach PhD students to do things that they’ll need further in their careers, like making presentations and writing emails?
Vague emails
James wants to help out an email spammer
Email vs. Twitter DM
Anonymous people on the internet
James discovers coin collecting
Blocking people on Twitter
Dan’s got a show recommendation: Money Heist / Paper house
Why do we hate spoilers?
Spoiling the end of a movie on Pompeii

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link

94: Predicting the replicability of research

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 21 Oct 2019 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James chat with Fiona Fidler (University of Melbourne), who is leading the repliCATS project, which aims to develop accurate techniques to elicit estimates of the replicability of research. This is also the first time they interview a guest live!

Here's what they discuss...

The story behind repliCATS
Australia's best export, Tim Tams
The SCORE project organised by DARPA
Can anyone use the repliCATS methodology?
Dan, Fiona, and James talk about did their honours theses (this is roughly the Australian equivalent of a Masters)
What would a successful repliCATS project look like?
What sort of heuristics do people use to assess replicability?
The AIMOS conference
The role of replicability in public policy
This is Bob Katter
Should we be keeping the replication crisis behind closed doors?

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, October 21) "Predicting the replicability of research ", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/KZPYG, Retrieved from https://osf.io/kzpyg/

Special Guest: Fiona Fidler.

93: Double-blind peer review vs. open science

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 07 Oct 2019 04:00:00 +0200

Dan and James answer a listener question on how to navigate open science practices, such as preprints and open code repositories, in light of double-blind reviews.

Stuff they cover:

How common is double-blind review?
How many journals don’t accept preprints?
Bias in the review process
How practical is blinded review?
Do the benefits of preprints outweighs not having blinded review?
James' approach to getting comments on his preprints
Convincing your supervisor to adopt open science practices
The preprint that James won’t submit for publication, for some reason
We get reviews...
Our first live guest!

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, October 7) "Double-blind peer review vs. Open Science", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7ZPME

92: Chaos in the brickyard

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss the role of Google Scholar in citation patterns and whether we should limit academics to only publishing two papers a year.

Links and details:

James has a new Hertz-quarters
The Metascience conference
How is google scholar influencing citation patterns
A slide from @Jevinwest's presentation on Google Scholars
Is this a symptom of lazy citaton practices rather than the algorithm?
What are the alternatives to google scholar?
Should google open up the algorithm?
GS will find your preprint and link it to the paywall link
Why is Google Scholar free?
What would make GS better?
Using the Zotero plugin for to collected citation info in bulk from search results in GS
Top recommended articles in GS are phenomenal
GS is not great for meta-analysis
GS reduces friction
Should we limit academics to only publishing two papers a year, as suggested by former guest, Dorothy Bishop?
Who would stand to lose from this?
Is this idea practical? What if only a few countries or institutions implemented this?
The Japanese math genius who posts papers on his own website
Chaos in the brickyard paper Chaos in the brickyard cartoon Open data isn’t a new concept

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, September 16) "Chaos in the brickyard", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast] https://osf.io/xfd2p/

91: Shifting the goalposts in statistics (with Kristin Sainani)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 09:00:00 +0200

We chat with Kristin Sainani (Stanford University) about a popular statistical method in sports medicine research (magnitude based inference), which has been banned by some journals, but continues to thrive in some pockets of scholarship. We also discuss the role of statistical inference in the current replication crisis.

Links and info

What is magnitude based inference and how did Kristin get involved in this?
The response to Kristin’s critiques
This is really an issue of small sample sizes
Kristin’s Coursera course on scientific writing
The readability of scientific articles is decreasing
The role of statistical inference in the replication crisis
Kristin has changed her mind about… Twitter
Dan made international news by posting a picture of a bird on Twitter
Kristin recommends this paper: P values are just the tip of the iceberg as well as the following books: Radium Girls and Bad Blood

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, September 2) "Shifting the goalposts in statistics (with Kristin Sainani)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], Retrieved from https://osf.io/3q25f/

Special Guest: Kristin Sainani.

90: Mo data mo problems

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss two listener questions on performing secondary data analysis and the potential for prestige to creep into open science reforms.

89: Conflicts of interest in psychology (with Tom Chivers)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 05 Aug 2019 08:00:00 +0200

We chat with Tom about whether psychology has a conflict-of-interest problem and how to best define such conflicts.

Links and other stuff we cover...

Tom's article on conflicts of interest in psychology
How can we define a conflict an interest without falling down a rabbit hole?
Communication statistics to the layperson
How science journalism focuses on single studies rather than the larger story
Tom’s new book: The AI does not hate you
Win Tom’s book! Tweet your favourite Hertz episode and we’ll pick one at random, who'll get sent Tom's book
How do journalists go about hearing from new voices for story comments?
What has Tom changes his mind about?
Tom’s book recommendation: Galileo's Middle Finger

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, August 5) "Conflicts of interest in psychology (with Tom Chivers)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/F9WBM

Special Guest: Tom Chivers.

88: The pomodoro episode

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 15 Jul 2019 08:45:00 +0200

Dan and James apply the pomodoro principle by tackling four topics within a strict ten-minute time limit each: James' new error detection tool, academic dress codes, the "back in my day..." defence for QRPs, and p-slacking.

Here are links and details...

James won an award
James’ new error detection tool, DEBIT
Academic dress codes
P-slacking
The p-slacking paper
Marcus Crede’s paper: A Negative Effect of a Contractive Pose Is Not Evidence for the Positive Effect of an Expansive Pose
A preview of our next episode on conflicts of interest in psychology

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, July 15) "The pomodoro episode", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VTDQ8

87: Improving the scientific poster (with Mike Morrison)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 01 Jul 2019 09:00:00 +0200

We chat with Mike Morrison, a former User Experience (UX) designer who quit his tech career to research how we can bring UX design principles to science. We discuss Mike's recently introduced 'better poster' format and why scientists should think carefully about UX.

Here's what we cover:

What’s the story behind the “better poster?”
The Better Poster video
The Better Poster template
The importance of minimising cognitive load
Science isn’t badly designed, it’s not even designed at all
What is good User Experience (UX)?
The most important feature of SciHub
Version 2 of the ‘better poster’
Weird poster designs that James has seen over the years
The Fish Market study
Common misunderstandings of the better poster
Empirically investigating the performance of the Better Poster
The meta-meta poster
How better posters get better questions
Mike’s next target: Better Presentations
Andrew York’s Github paper
A special give-away!

Other links

Mike on twitter
[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, July 1) "Improving the scientific poster (with Mike Morrison)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BNP7E

Special Guest: Mike Morrison.

86: Should I stay or should I go?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 17 Jun 2019 09:00:00 +0200

Dan and James answer a listener question on whether they should stick it out for a few months in a toxic lab to get one more paper or if they should leave.

Other stuff they cover:

We don’t like cricket, oh no, we love it
James is bad at tribalism
We answer a listener question about a bad lab environment
The “Dutch Bounce”
The Golden Lab Child
Demonstrating independence by writing a sole author paper
What should you do if there’s a late authorship switch on your paper?
Having an upfront conversation about authorship
James on NPR

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, June 17) "Should I stay or should I go?", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/RX7FB

85: GWAS big teeth you have, grandmother (with Kevin Mitchell)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 03 Jun 2019 08:00:00 +0200

We chat with Kevin Mitchell (Trinity College Dublin) about what the field of psychology can learn from genetics research, how our research theories tend to be constrained by our research tools, and his new book, "Innate".

Other stuff we cover:

Kevin's book, "Innate: How the Wiring of Our Brains Shapes Who We Are"
The story with link between Serotonin transporter gene 5-HTTLPR variation and it’s link to depression
Gene wide association studies (GWAS) vs. candidate gene studies
Correcting for multiple tests in GWAS
What can psychology learn from genetics when it comes to improving methods?
When did people lose faith in candidate gene studies?
Common vs. rare gene mutations
How our theories are shaped by our technology and resources
The third overlooked area of genetic variation (other than nature and nurture): How the developmental program plays out
Why intelligence is just an index of how well your brain is put together
What happened to identifying new therapeutic targets via genetics?
What Kevin has changed his mind about
A few papers on mice behavior relevant to what Kevin mentioned, Matias et al (2017), Menegas et al (2018), Zalocusky et al (2016), Miyazaki et al (2018), Bercovici et al (2018), Orsini et al (2018)
Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems (Wagner, A)
The Strategy of the Genes (Waddington, C)
Cybernetics : Or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (Wiener, N)

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, June 3) "GWAS big teeth you have, grandmother (with Kevin Mitchell)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/RS4HX

Special Guest: Kevin Mitchell.

84: A GPS in the Garden of Forking Paths (with Amy Orben)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Tue, 21 May 2019 18:00:00 +0200

We chat with Amy Orben, who applies "multiverse" methodology to combat and expose analytical flexibility in her research area of the impact of digital technologies on psychological wellbeing. We also discuss ReproducibiliTea, an early career researcher-led journal club initiative she co-founded, which helps young researchers create local open science groups.

Here are some more details and links:

The tweet pointing our Dan's gramatical error in his usual introduction. THANKS DENIS
Is Twitter melting our brains?
The history of "new technology" panic
What's the next panic?
Moral entrepreneurs: profiting from moral panic
Specification curve analysis: a way to run all theoretically defensible analysis options on a given dataset
Amy's Nature Human Behavior paper
Amy's PNAS paper
The longitudincal effect of social media use on life satisfaction
How should scientists speak out against dodgy science?
The story behind Reproducabilitea
The ReproducibiliTea podcast
ReproducibiliTea stickers!
The UK Reproducibility network
Daniel Lakens' Coursera course
A multiverse of multiverses
Press releasing every paper might not be the best idea
Amy's book recommendation: The long way to a small angry planet

Other links

Amy on Twitter
[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, May 21) "A GPS in the Garden of Forking Paths (with Amy Orben)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/38KPE

Special Guest: Amy Orben.

83: Back to our dirty unwashed roots

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 08 May 2019 10:00:00 +0200

By popular demand, Dan and James are kicking it old school and just shooting the breeze. They cover whether scientists should be on Twitter, if Fortnite is ruining our youth, book recommendations, and null oxytocin studies.

Stuff they cover and links to obsure references

Should scientists be on twitter?
James runs a Twitter experiment
Scite has now gone live, listen to our episode on this platform
Our dreams of a live Hertz episode
Is Fortnite killing our youth and the parallels with the “heavy metal” scare
Amy Orben’s screen time study
Multiverse analysis
Book recommendations: Kevin Mitchell’s "Innate", Gareth Leng's "Heart of the brain"
Daryl dug a hole reference, from the Aussie classic, "The Castle"
A new null oxytocin paper and the twitter response, and Dan's response
The SANS meeting venue
QR codes on posters
The slides to Dan’s oxytocin talk at SANS
The Hertz Hype Cycle
Dan recollects one of the first conversations he had with James

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, May 8) "Back to our dirty unwashed roots", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/N9BGX

82: More janitors and fewer architects

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 15 Apr 2019 08:45:00 +0200

We answer a listener question on the possible negative consequences of the open science movement—are things moving too quickly?

Links and things we discuss in the episode:

We have a new logo, if you haven't already noticed...
Contact us via our website form!
Considering the potential downsides of open science
Here come dat boi meme explination
The dangers of open access by fiat
The role of commercial entities in open science
The “University of Oslo fancy Norway people-pay-taxes oil money bloody library”
Dropping the success rate of grants to increase the quality of evaluation
Reframing open science reform efforts to a mission of equity and fairness
We don’t know the process behind university sexual harassment/misconduct investigations
Does transparency even matter if people won’t follow up on problems?
James' prediction: If someone starts a journal that ONLY does Registered Report, this will be very successful
The milkshake duck tweet and an explanation
Paul Roos and his “no dickheads” policy
Linking DOIs
We can't let edge case scenarios, which may not even play out, hobble progress

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, April 15) "More janitors and fewer architects" Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7ZR9J

81: Too Young To Know, Too Old To Care

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 01 Apr 2019 08:00:00 +0200

We answer our first audio question, on whether academia is too broken to fix, and a second question on whether we’ve ever worried about the possible repercussions of our public critiques and commentary on academia.

Show details:

Our first audio question is from Erin Williams (@DrErinWill), who asks whether academia is too broken to fix
The letter to the editor that got rejected, despite the publication of the response to the letter
Harassment in academia
Have we ever been worried that someone might say, "I'd never hire those dudes" because of what we say?
Other stuff that has happened to us as a result of the podcast
Fahrenheit vs. Celsius
Supply and demand for academic jobs
The criticism that comes with putting yourself out there

Links

@ReproRocks: for those working in reproduction to share their work through twitter
The Steven Pinker book - The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
Twitter thread from @drderringer
Me too Stem blog
Gideon on Twitter: @GidMK

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, April 1) "Too Young To Know, Too Old To Care" Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/W6MER

80: Cites are not endorsements (with Sean Rife)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Sun, 17 Mar 2019 23:00:00 +0100

We chat with Sean Rife, who the co-founder of scite.ai, a start-up that combines natural language processing with a network of experts to evaluate the veracity of scientific work.

Here's what we cover and links for a few things we mention

What is scite.ai?
The Winnower
Why is there no good (and free) plagiarism detector?
Grobid - A machine learning library for extracting, parsing and re-structuring PDFs
Meta-analysis can prop up flawed bodies of literature
The "Too meta" XKCD cartoon
What’s the end game for scite?
The 80,000 hours game
Spooner, a utility that allows authors of scientific publications to make their work available to the general public (probably) without violating publishing agreements

Other links

[Sean on twitter](www.twitter.com/seanrife)
[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, March 18) "Cites are not endorsements", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/Q9EYG

Special Guest: Sean Rife.

79: Clinical trial reporting (with Henry Drysdale)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Sun, 03 Mar 2019 21:00:00 +0100

We chat with Henry Drysdale (University of Oxford), co-founder of the COMPare trials project, which compared clinical trial registrations with reported outcomes in five top medical journals and qualitatively analysed the responses to critical correspondence.

Discussion points and links galore:

The history behind the COMPare project
The two papers that were published: a prospective cohort study correcting and monitoring 58 misreported trials and a qualitative analysis of researchers’ responses to critical correspondence
Ben Goldacre's books
What is outcome switching?
What were some of the responses to query letters from the authors and journals?
Misreporting trials (usually) doesn't lead to patient harm, but it harms the evidence base
Where should the buck stop with outcome switching?
Would Registered Reports solve this problem?
The CONSORT guidelines
Have the journals changed their practices?
COMPare on twitter
The COMPare website
Here is Henry on Twitter - @HenryMDrysdale
Here is Ben Goldacre on Twitter - @bengoldacre

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, March 4) "Clinical trial reporting (with Henry Drysdale)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/HBX8R

Special Guest: Henry Drysdale.

78: Large-scale collaborative science (with Lisa DeBruine)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Sun, 17 Feb 2019 21:00:00 +0100

In this episde, we chat with Lisa DeBruine (University of Glasgow) about her experience with large-scale collaborative science and how her psychology department made the switch from SPSS to R.

Discussion points and links galore:

Deborah Apthorp's tweet on having to teach SPSS, "because that's what students know"
People who are involved with teaching R for psychology at the University of Glasgow: @Eavanmac @dalejbarr @McAleerP @clelandwoods @PatersonHelena @emilynordmann
Why the #psyTeachR started teaching R for reproducible science
Data wrangling vs. statistical analysis
The psyTeachR website
Danielle Navarro, and her R text book that you should read
Lisa's "faux" package for data simulation
Sometimes you can't share data, simulations are a good way around this problem
"synthpop" is the name of the package that Dan mentioned that can simulate census data
Power analysis can be hard once you go beyond the more conventional statistical tests (e.g., t-tests, ANOVAs etc...)
Lisa's OSF page
Dirty code is always better than no code (but the cleaner the better)
Live coding is terrifying but a useful teaching tool. Here's Dan live coding how to build a website in R, typos and all
Using a Slack group for help
The psychological science accelerator
Chris Chartier (Psych Science Accelerator Director) on Twitter
A few of the other (hundreds) of folks involved with the Psych Science Accelerator Director: @PsySciAcc: @CRChartier @Ben_C_J @JkayFlake @hmoshontz
Lisa's Registered Report project on face rating
The challenges associated with collaborating with 100+ labs
Authorship order
Author contributions: CRediT taxonomy
The DARPA-funding project on using AI to determine reproducibility
Interacting Minds workshop in Denmark in March on open science and reproducibility
Lisa shares what Glasgow is like
Lisa has changed her mind about the importance of research metrics (h-index, impact factors etc...)
Lisa thinks you should read this paper on equivalence testing, which includes two former guests, Daniel Lakens, Anne Scheel, and friend of the show Peder Isager.
Here's the latest episode from Psych Soc O'Clock

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the first tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, February 18) "Large-scale collaborative science (with Lisa DeBruine)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/JDT6F

Special Guest: Lisa DeBruine.

77: Promiscuous expertise

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 04 Feb 2019 08:30:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss how to deal with the problem of scientists who start talking about topics outside their area of expertise. They also discuss what they would do differently if they would do their PhDs again

Here's what they cover...

The podcast will now be permanently archived on Open Science Framework
James did a talk at the Sound Education conference on podcasting for early career researchers. Here's the video if you want to see him squirm uncomfortably in his chair for 20 minutes and/or hear his thoughts our approach to podcasting
The temptation for academics to believe their own press and to have their thoughts reinforced by the praise they get
Keeping a handle on what you know and don't know
Nassim Nicholas Taleb has FANS
The "Pete Evans" effect, James' solution, that we should eat Pete Evans, pesca-pescaterianism, and the spectacularly bad advice that we should stare into the sun
You should follow gynecologist Jennifer Gunter on Twitter
How much money would you pay for 100,000 engaged twitter followers? Here's the tweet James was referring to
Should researchers have something like a Hippocratic Oath? How would we police this?
Researchers are not good at admitting they're wrong, do we need to approach retractions differently?
Would a bounty system, in which journals offer rewards, for finding errors in their papers, work well?
The "Loss of confidence" project, and Rebecca Willen's CV
The "Nobel disease"

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, February 4) "Promiscuous expertise", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VYCAH

76: Open peer review

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:00:00 +0100

Peer review is typically conducted behind closed doors. There's been a recent push to make open peer review standard, but what's often left out of these conversations are the potential downsides. To illustrate this, Dan and James discuss a recent instance of open peer review that led to considerable online debate.

Here's what they cover...

How should we navigate the open review of preprints?
Gate keepers gonna gate keep, but is this better out in the open?
Weaponising openness
Some people don't realise that some data can’t be shared
Should the reviewers of rejected papers follow them to the next journal?
When bad papers that you reject pop up in another journal, unchanged
Does the venue and timing of the open peer review matter?
Signing your reviews
Using publons to track your reviews

Links

Brad Love’s blog post: http://bradlove.org/blog/open-review
Niko’s blog post: https://nikokriegeskorte.org/2019/01/09/whats-the-best-measure-of-representational-dissimilarity/
Publons: https://publons.com
Dan on twitter: https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter: https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter: https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

75: Overlay journals (with Daniele Marinazzo)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 07 Jan 2019 16:45:00 +0100

We’re joined by Daniele Marinazzo (University of Ghent) to chat about the recently launched overlay journal Neurons, Behavior, Data analysis and Theory (NBDT), for which he on the Editorial Board.

An overlay journal is organised a set of manuscripts that is published and hosted by a seperate entity (in this case, the Arxiv server), a feature that dramatically reduces publication costs. We discuss the unique overlay model, how this can drive article fees to essentially zero, and what it takes to build a good community journal.

Here’s what we cover:

Why launch a new neuroscience journal and how is it different from currently established journals?
The unique way that editor’s decide which papers to send out for review
How does the journal operate when it’s open access and submissions only cost $10?
How do you build a journal that your target community will recognise as a ‘good’ journal?
The process of submitting a manuscript to NBDT
Should journals allow or encourage authors to suggest potential reviewers for their papers?
Using Twitter to find reviewers based on who’s ‘liked’ the preprint
Is posting a preprint on twitter actually useful?
What can neuroscience learn from the field of physics?
Authorship attribution
How can a journal better champion early career researchers?

Links...

NBDT journal: https://nbdt.scholasticahq.com
Danielle on twitter: https://twitter.com/dan_marinazzo
Dan on twitter https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Special Guest: Daniele Marinazzo.

74: Seeing double (with Elisabeth Bik)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 19 Dec 2018 08:00:00 +0100

In this episode, Dan and James chat with microbiologist Elisabeth Bik about about the detection of problematic images in scientific papers, the state of microbiome research, and making the jump from academia to industry.

More info on what they cover:

How Elisabeth get into error detection of scientific images
The process of detecting errors in images
How groups of authors tend to publish multiple papers with problematic images
The association between journal prestige and problematic images
Providing monetary incentives for publications
Making the jump from academia to industry
The current state of microbiome research

Links

Patreon: www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast
Elisabeth on Twitter: www.twitter.com/microbiomdigest
Elisabeth online: https://microbiomedigest.com
The problematic image paper: https://mbio.asm.org/content/7/3/e00809-16.short
Pubpeer: https://pubpeer.com
Dan on twitter: www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter: www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter: www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook: www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Special Guest: Elisabeth Bik.

73: Update your damn syllabus

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 03 Dec 2018 11:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss what's missing from biobehavioral science course syllabi.

Here's the episode lowdown:

A thank you to our new Patron supporters
The (supposed)CRISPR baby
SPSS vs. R: What should be used for instruction?
What would Dan and James include in a new syllabus?
Should students be taught scientific communication?
If we’re going to add new stuff to a syllabus, what gets removed?
Are courses too big these days?
Should students be taught how to set up a side hustle to apply their research skills outside of academia?

Links

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast
CRISPR baby story: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/30/18119589/crispr-technology-he-jiankui
Dan on twitter: https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter: https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter: https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

72: Anonymity in scientific publishing

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss a new journal of "controversial ideas" that will allow authors to publish articles anonymously. They also launch their Patreon page, in which listeners can support the show and get bonus features.

Here's the episode lowdown

James describes his first experience eating a “ding dong”
Why James and Dan do the show
What is Patreon?
The Journal of Controversial Ideas
The link between a vaccine batch and narcolepsy in Norway
Can you “claim” our anonymous article a few years into the future?
What’s the difference between anonymous blogging and anonymous journal articles?
The new Neurons, Behavior, Data analysis and Theory journal

Links

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast
Narcolepsy paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389945713001548
Journal of Controversial ideas story: https://www.bbc.com/news/education-46146766
PsyBrief twitter account: twitter.com/psybrief
NBDT journal: nbdt.scholasticahq.com
Dan on twitter: https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter: https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter: https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + bonus audio (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

71: Moving for your job

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 05 Nov 2018 13:00:00 +0100

In this episode, we chat about whether it’s necessary to move for an academic job to demonstrate “independence”.

Here's a rundown of the other stuff we cover:

James' appearance at the “Sound education” conference
Dan’s first day of school as a latino in a white neighbourhood
Our thoughts on the restrictive social media policy at the SfN (Society for Neuroscience)conference
Why and how Dan and James moved overseas from Australia
Do you really need to move overseas to demonstrate independence?
The two-body problem
Can you demonstrate independence with sole-author papers?

Links

SFN social media policy https://twitter.com/fedeadolfi/status/1058760331747581953
Dan on twitter https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

70: Doubling-blinding dog balls

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss the recent "grievance studies" hoax, whereby three people spent a year writing twenty-one fake manuscripts for submission to various cultural studies journals. They also discuss a new proposal to shift publication culture in which researchers pledge to publish exclusively in community-run journals but only when a pre-specified threshold of support for this commitment by the research community has been met.

Here's an overview of the episode:

It’s fat bear week!
The new proposal to fix the stranglehold of commercial publishers in academia
Flipping journals to open access
The ‘grievance studies’ hoax
When James first came across the “dog rape” paper
What if you were to design the dog study properly?
Should we systematically try and hoax journals?
Astronomy already injects fake data, can we learn from this?
Should these new hoaxes all be associated with Sokal?

Links

Brian Resnick’s fat bear week story: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/10/9/17955432/fat-bear-week-katmai-national-park-409-747-salmon
https://freeourknowledge.org
Paywall the movie: https://paywallthemovie.com
The ‘grievance studies’ hoax: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/
James’ thread on the “dog-rape” study: https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/1048313273563668486
The proposal for systematic hoaxing: https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1047507838493499392
A tweet from one of the reviewers of the dog paper: https://twitter.com/dwschieber/status/1047497301021798400
Fake (a.k.a. blind) injection in astronomy: https://www.ligo.org/news/blind-injection
The original Sokal paper: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
Dan on twitter: https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter: https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter: https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

69: Open science tools (with Brian Nosek)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Tue, 09 Oct 2018 11:00:00 +0200

We’re joined by Brian Nosek (Centre for Open Science and University of Virginia) to chat about building technology to make open science easier to implement, and shifting the norms of science to make it more open. We also discuss his recent social sciences replication project in which researchers accurately predicted which studies would replicate.

Here’s what we cover:

What is the Centre for Open Science?
How did Brian go from Psychology professor to the director of tech organisation?
How can researchers use the Open Science Framework (OSF)?
How does OSF remove friction for conducting open science?
Registered reports (now available at 131 journals!)
What factors converged to cause the emerging acceptance of open science?
The social sciences replication project
Can researchers anticipate which findings can replicate?
What happened when Brian and his team tried to submit their replication attempts of Science papers to Science?
The experience of reviewing registered reports

Links:
Centre for open science https://cos.io
Open Science Framework https://osf.io
Project Implicit https://www.projectimplicit.net/index.html
The social sciences replication project paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0399-z
Brian on Twitter https://www.twitter.com/briannosek
Dan on twitter https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Brian Nosek.

68: Friends don’t let friends believe in impact factors (with Nathan Hall)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:00:00 +0200

This episode includes part two of a chat with Nathan Hall (McGill University), who is the person behind the ’Shit academics say’ account (@AcademicsSay), which pokes fun of all the weird stuff that academics say. Before getting to the discussion, James and Dan answer two listener questions on grants and data cleaning.

Here’s what is covered in the episode:

People talk about papers all the time, but the grant process is not discussed openly—why?
Speaking to your funding body’s relevant program officer
Assembling a team that complements your weaknesses
Data carpentry and the tidyverse
Outlier analysis
Nathan Hall on big publishing
Upending the publication system by getting journals to bid for papers
Using peer review quality to judge the quality of journals
Debunking learning styes
Academics chasing after celebrity and hype
The cost of chasing academic prestige
Using twitter hashtags like #PhDChat and #ECRchat to learn more about the experiences of other people

Links
Data carpentry https://datacarpentry.org/
The paper with detailed code https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03811-x
The podcast conference https://www.soundeducation.fm/
Cern and comic sans https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/4/3136652/cern-scientists-comic-sans-higgs-boson
Shit Academics Say on twitter https://www.twitter.com/AcademicsSay
Nathan on Twitter https://www.twitter.com/prof_nch
Dan on twitter https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Nathan Hall.

67: Shit Academics Say (with Nathan Hall)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:00:00 +0200

We’re joined by Nathan Hall (McGill University) to chat about the role of humour in academia. Nathan is the person behind the ’Shit academics say’ Twitter account (@AcademicsSay), which pokes fun of all the weird stuff that academics say.

Here’s what we cover:

How Nathan got started with the account
The story behind Nathan's 'Research Wahlberg' Twitter account (@ResearchMark)
The risk of social media usage being perceived as “unprofessional”
The amount of free labor that academics are pressured to do
How alcohol is becoming an unspoken coping strategy in academia
Academic guilt and glamorising overwork
Why Nathan changed his mind about making Imposter Syndrome jokes
Leaving tweets in your draft folder

Links
Nein Quarterly https://twitter.com/NeinQuarterly
Shit my Dad says https://twitter.com/shitmydadsays
Cern and comic sans https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/4/3136652/cern-scientists-comic-sans-higgs-boson
Ate the onion https://www.reddit.com/r/AteTheOnion/
Shit Academics Say on twitter https://www.twitter.com/AcademicsSay
Nathan on Twitter https://www.twitter.com/prof_nch
Dan on twitter https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Nathan Hall.

66: Ideal worlds vs grim truths

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 06 Aug 2018 05:00:00 +0200

Dan and James answer listener questions on tips for starting your PhD and the role of statistics in exploratory research.

Other stuff they cover:

James new paper on people that voluntarily give themselves goosebumps
Dan’s new podcast: Physiology and Behavior
A preview of next weeks guest, Nathan Hall
When things are taken out of context on Twitter
What do you do when people are angry with you on the internet?
Tips for people starting a PhD
Can inferential statistics play a role in exploratory research?
Why don’t journals publish peer review reports?
Why is PsycNet so bad?

Links

James’ paper https://peerj.com/articles/5292/
Physiology and Behavior podcast from Dan https://shows.pippa.io/dsquintana
The tweet we discuss https://twitter.com/andpru/status/1024005699737509888?s=21

Dan on twitter https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

65: Blockchain and open science (with Jon Brock)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 06:00:00 +0200

Dan and James chat with Jon Brock (Cognitive scientist at Frankl) about the use of blockchain technology for open science.

Here's what they cover:

What is the blockchain?
Why Jon made the jump from academia to Frankl
A cryptocurrency for open science
What do institutional review boards think about using blockchain for data collection and storage?
Autism heterogeneity
How will this approach scale to biological signals and genetics data?
What’s something that Jon’s changed him mind about in regards to academia?

Links

Frankl https://frankl.io
Five reasons Frankl has a token https://medium.com/franklopenscience/why-does-frankl-need-a-frankl-token-4129d718ab74
Bjoern Brembs blog post http://bjoern.brembs.net/2018/05/after-24-years-when-will-academic-culture-finally-shift/
An explainer on cryptographic hashes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function#Illustration
Frankl in a nutshell https://medium.com/franklopenscience/frankl-in-a-nutshell-9b488c554dea
Frankl for autism https://medium.com/franklopenscience/frankl-for-autism-e74f0108bf5a
Rethinking Innateness https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/rethinking-innateness

Jon on Twitter twitter.com/DrBrocktagon
Dan on Twitter twitter.com/dsquintana
James on Twitter twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on Twitter twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Jon Brock.

64: Salami slicing

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 02 Jul 2018 05:00:00 +0200

Dan and James talk about the recent SIPS conference answer a listener question on "salami slicing" the outcomes from one study into multiple papers.

Here's what they cover:

What is the SIPS conference? [0:24]
A SIPS proposal for Google scholar to highlight commentaries and replication attempts on specific articles [15:42]
James and Dan’s favourite Hertz episodes [20:43]
We answer a listener question on Salami slicing [28:45]
Can you publish too much? [48:10]

Links

SIPS conference: https://www.improvingpsych.org/SIPS2018/
Reproducibilitea podcast: https://soundcloud.com/reproducibilitea
Salami slicing tweet: https://twitter.com/academicswrite/status/1008719899940786176
Cumulative impact factors: http://khakhalin.blogspot.com/2012/11/cumulative-impact-factor-benchmarking.html
A working document from SIPS on making replications discoverable (including Google scholar) https://osf.io/57zxa/

Find us on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
www.twitter.com/dsquintana
www.twitter.com/jamesheathers

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

63: Science journalism (with Brian Resnick)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 07:00:00 +0200

Dan and James chat about science journalism with Brian Resnick (@b_resnick), who is a science reporter at Vox.com.

Here’s what they cover:

Should scientists be worried that their work will be misrepresented when talking to the media? [0:58]
How Brian approaches science journalism [8:53]
It’s ok to challenge the assumptions of science journalists [16:57]
How do you write a great headline? [19:13]
How does Brian appraise the quality of research? [29:50]
Should psychiatrists (or journalists) diagnose the US President? [32:50]
Stories in science that no one knows the answer to [36:58]
How to promote your research without going via your institution’s media department [40:24]
The best way to pitch your research to a science journalist [44:25]
How pre-preprints are great for research addressing current events [48:45]
How scientists can improve their science communication writing [53:15]
Dick jokes in science writing — yes or no? [54:30]
What has Brian changed his mind about? [56:37]
Brian’s book recommendation [58:05]

Links:
Brian’s pieces at Vox - https://www.vox.com/authors/brian-resnick
The twitter poll that Dan was referring to - https://twitter.com/kylejasmin/status/960065733551181824?lang=en
The Weeds podcast episode on the Goldwater rule - https://art19.com/shows/the-weeds/episodes/72d4c65f-2d2a-4925-8bb6-7d6ca93cb561
Brian’s email - Brian@vox.com
Brian on Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/b_resnick

Books mentioned:
We have no idea - https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-No-Idea-Universe/dp/0735211515
Does it fart? - https://www.amazon.com/Does-Fart-Definitive-Animal-Flatulence/dp/0316484156/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Find us on Twitter:
https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Brian Resnick.

62: Adopting open science practices (with Dorothy Bishop)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 04 Jun 2018 06:15:00 +0200

Dan and James chat about the adoption of open science practices with Dorothy Bishop, Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology at the University of Oxford.

Here are some highlights from the show:

Why Dorothy starting adopting open science practices
Forking paths of analysis
Dorothy’s experience with her first registered report
Issues around data deposition
When someone finds an error in your data
What happens when a senior researcher is using questionable research practices?
What to do when you’re caught doing something wrong
Detecting errors in other papers
The potential for open data to be weaponised
How error detection is interpersonally difficult
Carving out time for non-work pursuits
The benefits of writing fiction when you're a scientist
Using video for science communication
James Heathers: Cat dealer
Promoting your research vs. promoting yourself
Dorothy’s book recommendation

Links
Dan Gilbert’s paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1037.2
Merchants of doubt [book]: https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942
Dorothy's blog: deevybee.blogspot.com
Dorothy's crime novels: https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_ebooks_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Deevy+Bishop&search-alias=digital-text&text=Deevy+Bishop&sort=relevancerank
Dorothy on Twitter: twitter.com/deevybee

Find us on Twitter
twitter.com/hertzpodcast
twitter.com/dsquintana
twitter.com/jamesheathers

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Dorothy Bishop.

61: Performance enhancing thugs (with Greg Nuckols)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 21 May 2018 06:00:00 +0200

Dan and James chat with Greg Nuckols, who is grad student in exercise physiology, strength coach, and writer at strongerbyscience.com

What they cover in this episode:

Why Greg blogs his papers before preprints
How Greg combines his business with his grad study
Getting your research to your audience without publishing in scientific journals
The limitations of traditional publishing
Addressing popular misconceptions in research
Are questionable research practices as bad in sports science as they are in psychology?
Being an “academic outsider” can be tough, but it has some advantages
The work that goes into exercise physiology studies
How practical are multilab research projects in sports science?
Exercise “experts” on Instagram
Using Instagram to disseminate research
Greg’s go-to resources for learning about open science
What Greg’s changed his mind about
How Greg’s planning on funding his future research without grants

Links

Scihub - whereisscihub.now.sh
Greg on Twitter - twitter.com/GregNuckols
Greg's website and newsletter - https://www.strongerbyscience.com
Stronger by Science on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/strongerbyscience/
Chris Beardsly on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/chrisabeardsley/
Data colada - http://datacolada.org
Slatestar codex - http://slatestarcodex.com
Jordan Anaya's blog - https://medium.com/@OmnesRes
SportRXiv - http://sportrxiv.org

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Greg Nuckols.

60: This is more of a comment than a question

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Tue, 08 May 2018 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James answer listener questions on academic conferences, getting abreast of the literature, and conflicts of interest.

Here are more details of what's on this episode:

How question times during conference seminars are useless
Choosing which conferences to attend as a PhD student
Feedback from our Registered Reports episode with Chris Chambers (Episode 56)
People that have binged our entire back catalogue
The amount of reading do you need to do to keep track of the field you work in
PhD students need time to make time to read the literature
People sending out half-arsed work hoping that peer-review will “fix it”
Guest authorship
When you’re a native English speaker and get asked to have your manuscript proofed by a native English speaker
Is it a conflict of interest to a review a paper with that includes someone you’ve co-authored with in the past on a different topic?
The Frontiers journal model
Reviewing papers so that authors are actually grateful for your criticism

Links

Nuzzle: http://nuzzel.com
Pocket: https://getpocket.com
Mendeley: http://mendeley.com

Find us on Twitter:

twitter.com/hertzpodcast
twitter.com/dsquintana
twitter.com/jamesheathers

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

59: Rethinking the scientific journal (with Rickard Carlsson)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 07:00:00 +0200

Despite cosmetic changes, scientific journals haven't changed that much over the past few decades. So what if we were to completely rethink how a scientific journal should operate in today's environment?

Dan and James are joined by Rickard Carlsson (Linnaeus University, Sweden), who is the Co-Editor of the new "Meta-Psychology" journal.

Here's what they cover:

Why start a new psychology journal?
What’s new about this journal?
How does the journal have no subscription fees and no article processing fees?
How does a new journal increase its profile?
The difficulties in publishing negative results
The limits of study pre-registration
Are data archiving requirements unrealistic?
Open polices and the Swedish constitution
How can we make data anonymous?
What’s the hardest thing about starting a journal?
What would success look like for this new journal?
What has Rickard changed his mind about recently?
What’s one book or paper that Rickard thinks everyone should read

Links

The Daniel Lakens blog post on JPSP (The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) http://daniellakens.blogspot.no/2018/03/the-journal-of-personality-and-social.html
Statistical rethinking book http://xcelab.net/rm/statistical-rethinking/
Psych methods Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/853552931365745/

Twitter handles
Everything Hertz - @hertzpodcast
Rickard - @RickCarlsson
Dan - @dsquintana
James - @JamesHeathers

Music credits - Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Rickard Carlsson.

58: Lessons from podcasting (with Simine Vazire)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 02 Apr 2018 07:00:00 +0200

Dan and James are joined by Simine Vazire (University of California, Davis and co-host of the Black Goat podcast) to chat about the role of podcasting in scientific communication. Dan's wife also starts going into labor during the episode, so this is an extra special one - make sure you listen through the ENTIRE episode.

Here's what the cover:

Why Simine started podcasting
The perils of being a "methodologist terrorist" researcher
Why podcast when you could blog or tweet?
Dan and James’ favourite things about podcasting
The current role of blogs
Navigating the public/private crossover of science communication
How much do we censor our podcasts?
Should Journal editors tweet and podcast in a personal capacity?
Should early career researchers podcast?
The costs of not speaking above your station
What equipment does we use to record podcasts?
Two vs. three podcast hosts?
How do you know when you have a good podcast?
What type of person is suited to podcasting?
What book does Simine think everyone should read?
What’s something Simine’s changed her mind about recently?

Links

Ed Vul Social neuroscience paper https://gate.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/wiki/whynhow/images/e/ef/Vul_et_al_orig_paper.pdf
Snowball ice microphone https://www.bluedesigns.com/products/snowball/
Black Goat podcast http://www.theblackgoatpodcast.com
James’ advice for PhDs https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/12-thing-you-should-know-before-you-start-a-phd-9c064a979e8
Understanding Psychology as a Science https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/Understanding-Psychology-as-a-Science/?K=9780230542303
What is this thing called science? https://www.amazon.com/What-This-Thing-Called-Science/dp/162466038X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Simine Vazire.

57: Radical Transparency (with Rebecca Willén)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:00:00 +0100

Dan and James are joined by Rebecca Willén (Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education) to discuss transparency in scientific research and how she started her own independent research institute in Bali.

Here's what they cover:

Rebecca explains the story behind her practice of sharing disclosure statements for her published work
Many people are changing their research practices for the better for current research - but what about their past research?
The 21 word solution
Using disclosure statements in your pHD
The state of research openness in forensic psychology
The flexibility in determining a primary outcome
How and why Rebecca founded the IGDORE research institute
The drawbacks to starting your own research institute
Rebecca’s recommendation for getting started with open science
The story behind the RONIN institute

Links -
IGDORE https://igdore.org
Rebecca’s website https://rmwillen.info
21 word solution https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2160588
PNAS article questioning whether there’s a reporducability crisis http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/08/1708272114
IGDORE Open Science meetup https://igdore.org/open-science-meetup-bali-2018/
IGDORE affiliation https://igdore.org/affiliation/
RONIN institute http://ronininstitute.org
XKCD theme for R http://xkcd.r-forge.r-project.org
GNU manifesto https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
Twitter: @hertzpodcast, @dsquintana, @jamesheathers, and @rmwillen

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Rebecca Willén.

56: Registered reports (with Chris Chambers)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:00:00 +0100

Dan and James are joined by Chris Chambers (Cardiff University) to discuss the Registered Reports format.

Here’s an overview of what they covered:

What is a registered report and why should we implement them? [1:47]
The impact of conscious and unconscious bias on scientific publication [6:17]
Common objections to registered reports [8:21]
The slippery slope fallacy [14:33]
The advantages of registered reports for early career researchers [15:47]
The generational divide for embracing methodological reforms [19:13]
The launch of registered reports in 2013 [23:30]
The “tone debate” in psychology [24:50]
Dealing with publishing decisions as an early career researcher [27:30]
Using registered reports to disarm your research rivals [30:52]
A peek behind the curtain of peer-review [34:40]
How do we convince journals to take up the registered report format? [36:28]
Using registered reports for meta-analysis [38:40]
What’s something that Chris has changed his mind about recently? [43:14]
What’s Chris’ favourite failure? [48:23]
Chris’ opinion of Wales [51:49]

Links

The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Deadly-Sins-Psychology-Scientific/dp/0691158908
Chris Chambers on Twitter @chrisdc77
Dorothy Bishop’s blog on how registered reports provides better control of the publication timeline http://deevybee.blogspot.no/2016/03/better-control-of-publication-time-line.html
The Startup Scientist podcast https://shows.pippa.io/startupscientist
Startup scientist on Twitter @Startup_sci
The open science pyramid (slide 8) https://osf.io/yq59d/
The Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology “power posing” issue http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rrsp20/2/1?nav=tocList
Dan on Twitter @dsquintana
James on Twitter @JamesHeathers

Music credits Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Chris Chambers.

55: The proposal to redefine clinical trials

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:00:00 +0100

In this episode, Dan and James discuss the US National Institutes of Health's new definition of a “clinical trial”, which comes into effect on the 25th of January.

Here’s the new definition: “A research study in which one or more human subjects are prospectively assigned to one or more interventions (which may include placebo or other control) to evaluate the effects of those interventions on health-related biomedical or behavioural outcomes”.

Over the course of this episode, they cover the pros and cons of this decision along with the implications for researchers and science in general.

Here are a few things they cover:

The traditional definition of a clinical trial
We go through James’ old work to determine if he’s been a clinical trialist all along
The lack of clarity surrounding the new definition
Why are adopting a clinical trial approach when this approach has obvious weaknesses?
What do you actually have to do when running a clinical trial?
Will institutions also adopt this new definition, thus putting basic research through clinical trial IRBs?
What if this extra red tape actually improves science?
One argument against the proposal is that registering more studies on clinicaltrials.gov will confuse the public. We don’t buy that.
Clinical trial registrations generally miss the many nuances of study design
The new clinical trial definition will eliminate some of the ‘forking paths’ when analysing and reporting data
How this new definition will affect grant applications for early career researchers?
What happens to exploratory research?
NIH case studies of what may constitute a clinical trial

Links

NIH clinical trial definition https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/definition.htm
The NIH “clinical trial decision tree” https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/CT-decision-tree.pdf
NIH case studies of what may constitute a clinical trial https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/case-studies.htm#case1

54: Cuckoo Science

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:00:00 +0100

In this episode, James sits in the guest chair as Dan interviews him on his recent work find and exposing inconsistent results in the scientific literature.

Stuff they cover:

How James got into finding and exposing inconsistent results
The critiques of James’ critiques
How James would do things differently, if he were start over again?
Separating nefarious motives from sloppiness
The indirect victims of sloppy science
Grants that fund sloppy science take resources from responsible science projects
If people actually posted their data and methods, James’ job would be much easier
Registered reports improve the quality of science
If James could show one slide to every introductory psychology lecture what would it say?
The one thing James believes that others think is crazy
What James has changed his mind about in the last year

Links

The Sokal hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
James’ Psychological Science paper: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797615572908
The @IamSciComm Tweetstorm on podcasting: https://twitter.com/iamscicomm/status/935851867661357057

53: Skin in the game

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss whether you need to have “skin in the game” to critique research.

Here's what else they cover in the episode:

Should scientists be required to communicate their science?
If your research is likely to be misinterpreted try and get out of in front of what's going to be said
Will science communication just become another metric?
The distinction between “science communication” and “science media”
Who’s going to pay for all science communicators that we’ll need to communicate everyone’s science?
Dan and James mispronounce Dutch and German names and give a formal apology to the nation of The Netherlands
Outcome switching in clinical trials
Does having skin in the game guarantee expertise, or just wild biases?
James’ recent desk rejection from a Journal Editor
Dan’s method to invite manuscript reviewers as an Associate Editor

Links:
The science communication Twitter thread https://twitter.com/ocaptmycapt/status/927193779693645825
ERC comics https://www.erccomics.com
The “skin in the game” tweet https://twitter.com/paperbag1/status/914923706648055813
That study in neuopsychopharmacology on a IL-6 receptor antibody to treat residual symptoms in schizophrenia https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2017258

52: Give p's a chance (with Daniel Lakens)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 06:00:00 +0200

In this episode, Dan and James welcome back Daniel Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology) to discuss his new paper on justifying your alpha level.

Highlights:

Why did Daniel write this paper?
Turning away from mindless statistics
Incremental vs. seismic change in statistical practice
The limitations to justifying your alpha
The benefits of registered reports
Daniel’s coursera course
What’s better? Two pre-registered studies at .05 or one unregistered study at .005?
Testing at the start of semester vs. the end of semester
Thinking of controlling for Type 1 errors as driving speed limits
Error rates mean different things between fields
What if we applied the “5 Sigma” threshold used in physics to the biobehavioral sciences?
What about abandoning statistical significance
How did Daniel co-ordinate a paper with 88 co-authors?
Using time zones to your benefit when collaborating
How can junior researchers contribute to these types of discussions?
Science by discussion, not manifesto
The dangers of blanket recommendations
How do you actually justify your alpha from scratch?

Links

Daniel on Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/lakens
Daniel’s courser course - https://www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences
Justify your alpha paper - https://psyarxiv.com/9s3y6
Abandon statistical significance - https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.07588
Using the costs of error rates to set your alpha - https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00625.x

Special Guest: Daniel Lakens.

51: Preprints (with Jessica Polka)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 06 Oct 2017 09:00:00 +0200

In this episode, Dan and James are joined by Jessica Polka, Director of ASAPbio, to chat about preprints.

Highlights:

What is ASAPbio?
Differences between the publication processes in the biological sciences vs. the biomedical sciences
Common concerns with preprints
Media embargoes
How peer review isn’t necessarily a mark of quality
Do preprints make it harder to curate information?
Specialty preprint servers vs. broad servers?
How well do you need to format your preprint?
How do you bring up preprints to lab heads and PIs?
An example of a good preprint experience from Dan
Using preprints for your grant applications
What Jessica has changed her mind about
The one article that Jessica thinks everyone should read

Links

Jessica's Twitter account - @jessicapolka
ASAPbio - http://asapbio.org & @asapbio_
Rescuing Biomedical science conference 2014 resources - http://rescuingbiomedicalresearch.org/events/
Sherpa/Romeo - http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php
PaleoArxiv - https://osf.io/preprints/paleorxiv
Principles for Open Scholarly Infrastructures paper - https://figshare.com/articles/Principles_for_Open_Scholarly_Infrastructures_v1/1314859

Special Guest: Jessica Polka.

50: Special 50th episode (LIVE)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:00:00 +0200

Dan and James celebrate their 50th episode with a live recording! They cover a blog post that argues grad students shouldn’t be publishing, what’s expected of today’s postdocs, and the ‘tone’ debate in psychology.

BONUS: You can also watch the video of this episode on the Everything Hertz podcast channel (link below)

Other stuff they cover:

James offends a sociologist, as is his wont
The argument for why grad students shouldn’t publish
Gatekeepers controlling what’s being published
Editors that Google authors before sending papers out for review
Judging researchers on their institution’s location
James on networking
How do you challenge reviewers when they say you are "too junior"
The standards of Frontiers papers
Writing review papers for the wrong reasons
Why are there so many meta-analyses?
Pre-registering your meta-analysis
Registered reports vs. pre-registration
What’s expected of today’s postdocs
How many papers should you peer review?
How James tried to ward off review requests
Things that millennials are ruining
The role of humour in the tone debate

Links
Episode video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj3WsTiUuLo&t=3s

The “should grad students publish" article: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/23/renewed-debate-over-whether-graduate-students-should-publish#.WaGAeN_v8jI.link

Prospero meta-analysis registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/

Eiko Fried’s tweet on postdoc expectations: https://twitter.com/eikofried/status/902470702892290048

James’ publons profile: https://publons.com/author/1171358/james-aj-heathers#profile

JANE: http://jane.biosemantics.org

Anonymous PubPeer comments: https://pubpeer.com/publications/0E0DAEBEC6183646F18F4FAED03B1A#7

49: War and p's

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 22:00:00 +0200

In this episode Dan and James discuss a forthcoming paper that's causing a bit of a stir by proposing that biobehavioral scientists should use a 0.005 p-value statistical significance threshold instead of 0.05.

Stuff they cover:

A summary of the paper and how they decided on 0.005.
Whether raising the threshold the best way to improve reproducibility?
Is 0.005 too stringent?
Would this new threshold unfairly favour “super” labs?
If we keep shifting the number does any threshold really matter?
Dan and James’ first impressions of the paper
A crash course on Mediterranean taxation systems
What would a 0.005 threshold practically mean for researchers?

Links
The paper https://osf.io/mky9j/
ENIGMA consortium http://enigma.ini.usc.edu

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

48: Breaking up with the impact factor (with Jason Hoyt)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:00:00 +0200

Dan and James are joined by Jason Hoyt, who is the CEO and co-founder of PeerJ, an open access journal for the biological and medical sciences.

Here's some of what they cover:

PeerJ’s model and how it got started
What goes into running a journal
Impact factors vs. low-cost publishing
When the journal user experience is too good
Getting a quick reviewer turnaround
The need scientists to change their practices (not publishers)
PeerJ’s membership model
Glamour journals
Future plans for PeerJ
Predatory journals
Researchers don’t want cheap journals, only impact factors

Links

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Jason Hoyt.

47: Truth bombs from a methodological freedom fighter (with Anne Scheel)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 08:00:00 +0200

In this episode, Dan and James are joined by Anne Scheel (LMU Munich) to discuss open science advocacy.

Highlights:

How Anne became an open science advocate
Open science is better science
Methodological terrorists/freedom fighters
The time Anne stood up after a conference keynote and asked a question
Asking poor PhD students to pay for conference costs upfront and then reimbursing them 6 months later
Is it worth if for early career researchers to push open science practices?
How to begin with implementing open science practices
Power analysis should be normal practice, it shouldn’t be controversial
Anne’s going to start a podcast
The 100%CI: A long copy blog with 4 writers
The benefits of preprints and blogging
Science communication in English for non-native English speakers
Doing stuff that interests you vs. stuff that’s meant to advance your career

Twitter accounts of people/things we mentioned:
@dalejbarr - 2:10
@siminevazire - 2:45
@lakens - 2:45
@nicebread303 (Felix Schönbrodt)- 3:50
@annaveer - 21:40
@methodpodcast - 29:20
@the100ci - 30:40
@realscientists - 31:40
@upulie - 31:55
@fMRI_guy (Jens Foell) - 32:20
@realsci_DE (Real scientists Germany) - 32:30
@maltoesermalte, @_r_c_a, @dingding_peng (100% CI team) - 33:55
@stuartJRitchie - 65:05

Links

Early Career Researchers and publishing practices: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1102/full (paywalled)
Pre-registration in social psychology—A discussion and suggested template” Paywalled link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103116301925, Preprint link: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/4frms/
The CI 100%: http://www.the100.ci

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Anne Scheel.

46: Statistical literacy (with Andy Field)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:00:00 +0200

In this episode, Dan and James are joined by Andy Field (University of Sussex), author of the “Discovering Statistics” textbook series, to chat about statistical literacy.

Highlights:

The story behind Andy’s new book
SPSS and Bayesian statistics
Andy explains why he thinks the biggest problem in science is statistical illiteracy
Researcher degrees of freedom and p-hacking
The story behind the the first version of ‘Discovering statistics’
How to improve your statistical literacy
Does peer review improve the statistics of papers
Researchers will draw different conclusions on the same dataset
The American Statistical Association’s statement on p-values
How has the teaching of statistics for psychology degrees changed over the years
Andy fact checks his own Wikipedia page
Andy’s thoughts on Bayesian statistics and how he applied it in a recent paper
The peer review of new statistical methods
Andy’s future textbook plans
The rudeness of mailing lists/discussion forums
What is something academia or stats-related that Andy believes that others think is crazy?
The one book that Andy recommends that everyone should read
We learn the crossover in James and Andy’s taste in metal bands

Links

Andy’s books: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/author/andy-field-0
The ‘PENIS of statistics’ lecture from Andy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe3_DeLC2JE
Daniel Lakens’ Coursera course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences
The American Statistical Association’s statement on p-values: http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
The refereeing decision paper: https://osf.io/gvm2z/
R stan: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rstan/index.html
Statistical rethinking book: https://www.crcpress.com/Statistical-Rethinking-A-Bayesian-Course-with-Examples-in-R-and-Stan/McElreath/p/book/9781482253443

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Andy Field.

45: Conferences and conspiracy theories

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 15:00:00 +0200

It’s conference season so in this episode Dan and James discuss the ins and outs of scientific conferences.

Here’s what they cover:

Research parasite award
How much do you save when you don’t run an fMRI study
They come up with an even better name than “Research parasite”
Could the GOP weaponise the open science movement?
Conspiracy theories
Attempts to slow down science by taking science out of context
The Black Goat Podcast
The conference backchannel
Contacting people at conferences
Sitting though seminars (and not falling asleep)
Twitter conferences
Good presentations vs. bad presentations
Starting collaborations at conferences
Do conference locations matter?
Periscoping conference presentations

Links

The research parasite award: http://researchparasite.com
The GOP and science reform https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/04/reproducibility-science-open-judoflip/521952/
The Crackpot index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
The Brain Twitter conference https://brain.tc

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

44: Who’s afraid of the New Bad People? (with Nick Brown)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 19 May 2017 18:00:00 +0200

James and Dan are joined by Nick Brown (University of Groningen) to discuss how the New Bad People — also known as shameless little bullies, vigilantes, the self-appointed data police, angry nothings, scientific McCarthyites, second-stringers, whiners, the Stasi, destructo-critics, and wackaloons* — are trying to improve science

Here’s what they cover

Power imbalances in academia
Publication bias
Euphemisms for people who are publicly critical of science
How to go about questioning the scientific record
Peer reviewed criticism vs. blog posts
Making meta-analysis easier
Data-recycling
Well-being and genomics
Popular science books and conflicts of interest
The ‘typical’ response to a Letter to an Editor
What Dan and James do during the breaks
Why don’t people report descriptive statistics anymore?
Priming studies
Science in the media
What Nick has changed his mind about

Links
Nick on Twitter - @sTeamTraen
Nick’s blog - http://steamtraen.blogspot.no

This list is from one of James’ blog posts https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/meet-the-new-bad-people-4922137949a1

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Nick Brown.

43: Death, taxes, and publication bias in meta-analysis (with Daniel Lakens)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 05 May 2017 09:00:00 +0200

Daniel Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology) joins James and Dan to talk meta-analysis.

Here’s what they cover:

Daniel’s opinion on the current state of meta-analysis
The benefit of reporting guidelines (even though hardly anyone actually follows them)
How fixing publication bias can fix science
Meta-analysis before and after that Bem paper
How to correct for publication bias
Whether meta-analyses are just published for the citations
The benefits of pre-registering meta-analysis
How we get people to share their data
How sharing data doesn’t just benefit others - it also helps you replicate your own analyses later
Success is tied to funding, no matter how “cheap” your research is
How people can say “yes” to cumulative science, but “no” to sharing data
Responding to mistakes
How to find errors in your own papers before submission
We ask Daniel: i) If he could should one slide to every introductory psychology lecture in the world, what would say?, ii) What has he changed his mind about in the last few years?, iii) The one book/paper he thinks everyone should read
Daniel also gives James and Dan ideas for their 50th episode

Links
Daniel on Twitter - @lakens
Daniel’s course - www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences
Daniel’s blog - daniellakens.blogspot.no
Daniel’s recommended book - Understanding Psychology as a science https://he.palgrave.com/page/detail/?sf1=barcode&st1=9780230542303

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Daniel Lakens.

42: Some of my best friends are Bayesians (with Daniel Lakens)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:00:00 +0200

Daniel Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology) drops in to talk statistical inference with James and Dan.

Here’s what they cover:

How did Daniel get into statistical inference?
Are we overdoing the Frequentist vs. Bayes debate?
What situations better suit Bayesian inference?
The over advertising of Bayesian inference
Study design is underrated
The limits of p-values
Why not report both p-values and Bayes factors?
The “perfect t-test” script and the difference between Student’s and Welch’s t-tests
The two-one sided test
Frequentist and Bayesian approaches for stopping procedures
Why James and Dan started the podcast
The worst bits of advice that Daniel has heard about statistical inference
Dan discuss a new preprint on Bayes factors in psychiatry
Statistical power
Excel isn’t all bad…
The importance of accessible software
We ask Daniel about his research workflow - how does he get stuff done?
Using blog posts as a way of gauging interest in a topic
Chris Chambers’ new book: The seven deadly sins of psychology
Even more names for methodological terrorists

Links

Daniel on Twitter - @lakens
Daniel’s course - https://www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences
Daniel’s blog - http://daniellakens.blogspot.no
TOSTER - http://daniellakens.blogspot.no/2016/12/tost-equivalence-testing-r-package.html
Dan’s preprint on Bayesian alternatives for psychiatry research - https://osf.io/sgpe9/
Understanding the new statistics - https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-New-Statistics-Meta-Analysis-Multivariate/dp/041587968X
Daniel’s effect size paper - http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863/full
The seven deadly sins of Psychology - http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10970.html

Special Guest: Daniel Lakens.

41: Objecting to published research (with William Gunn)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 18:00:00 +0200

In this episode, Dan and James are joined by William Gunn (Director of Scholarly communications at Elsevier) to discuss ways in which you can object to published research.

They also cover:

What differentiates an analytics company from a publishing company?
How scientific journals are one of the last areas to fully adopt the dynamic nature of the internet
Data repositories
How to make a correction in a journal
The benefits of Registered Reports
When everyone asked Elsevier for a journal of negative results but no one submitted to them
How unit of publication isn’t really indicative of science as a process
Altmetrics and gaming the system
How to appeal to a journal about a paper
Citation cartels: the dumbest crime
William’s switch from research to publishing and his shift in perspective
The crackpot index
James’ flowchart on how to contact an editor
The copyediting process
Elsevier’s approach to open peer review: should junior researchers be worried?
The one thing William thinks that everyone else thinks is crazy
William’s most worthwhile career investment
The one paper that William thinks everyone should read

Links

Williams’s twitter account: @mrgunn
Williams’s blog: http://synthesis.williamgunn.org
The Crackpot index: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
The paper William thinks everyone should read: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/8/341/341ps12.full

Special Guest: William Gunn.

40: Meta-research (with Michèle Nuijten)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 06:00:00 +0100

Dan and James are joined by Michèle Nuijten (Tilburg University) to discuss 'statcheck', an algorithm that automatically scans papers for statistical tests, recomputes p-values, and flags inconsistencies.

They also cover:

How Michèle dealt with statcheck criticisms
Psychological Science’s pilot of statcheck for journal submissions
Detecting data fraud
When should a journal issue a correction?
Future plans for statcheck
The one thing Michèle thinks that everyone else thinks is crazy
Michèle's most worthwhile career investment
The one paper that Michèle thinks everyone should read

Links

Michèle's website: https://mbnuijten.com
Michèle's twitter account: https://twitter.com/michelenuijten
Statcheck: https://statcheck.io
Tilberg University meta-research center: http://metaresearch.nl
Guardian story on detecting science fraud: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/01/high-tech-war-on-science
The paper Michèle thinks everyone should read: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/DPlab/papers/publishedPapers/Simmons_2011_False-Positive%20Psychology.pdf
Everything Hertz on Twitter: https://twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast
The startup scientist, Dan's other podcast on boosting your scientific career: https://soundcloud.com/startup-scientist-podcast

Special Guest: Michèle Nuijten.

http://www.nature.com/news/science-journalism-can-be-evidence-based-compelling-and-wrong-1.21591

39: Academic hipsters

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 10 Mar 2017 09:00:00 +0100

We all know hipsters. You know, like the guy that rides his Penny-farthing to the local cafe to write his memoirs on a typewriter - just because its more ‘authentic’. In this episode, James and Dan discuss academic hipsters. These are people who insist you need to use specific tools in your science like R, python, and LaTeX. So should you start using these trendy tools despite the steep learning curve?

Other stuff they cover:

Why James finally jumped onto Twitter
A new segment: 2-minutes hate
The senior academic that blamed an uncredited co-author for data anomalies
An infographic ranking science journalism quality that’s mostly wrong
When to learn new tools, and when to stick with what you know
Authorea as a good example of a compromise between "easy" and "reproducible"

Links

The science journalism infographic

Facebook page

www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Twitter account

www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast

Music credits: Lee Rosevere http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

38: Work/life balance - Part 2

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:00:00 +0100

Dan and James continue their discussion on work/life balance in academia. They also suggest ways to get your work done within a sane amount of hours as well as how to pick the right lab.

Some of the topics covered:

Feedback from our last episode
Why the podcast started in the first place
The "Red Queen" problem
Does the "70 hour lab" produce better work?
Some experiments aren't suited to a 9-5 schedule
More tips for anonomusly skiving off at work
What are cognitive limits off focused work?
Do early career researchers even earn the minimum wage when you factor in the hours worked?
How James gets things done: Work on one thing at a time until it's done and protect your time
How Dan gets things done: Pomodoros (40 mins work, 10 minute break), blocking social/news websites
How do pick a lab to work in?

Links

Facebook page

Twitter account

http://www.prepubmed.org/grim_test/

37: Work/life balance in academia

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:00:00 +0100

In this episode, we talk work/life balance for early career researchers. Do you need to work a 70-hour week to be a successful scientist or can you actually have a life outside the lab?

Some of the topics covered:

An update on "the postdoc that didn't say no" story
Brian Wansink's response
De-identifying data in research
The perils of public criticism
Criticising the research vs. criticising the person
Some sage advice from a senior academic on "Making science the centre of your life"
Look for a boss that won't make insane demands of your time
How much good work is really coming out of a 70-hour week?
An old hack Dan used to do to pretend he was working on data when he was really just on twitter

Links

GRIM test calculator

Jordan's follow-up post

https://medium.com/@OmnesRes/the-donald-trump-of-food-research-49e2bc7daa41#.me8e97z51

Brian Wansink's response

http://www.brianwansink.com/phd-advice/statistical-heartburn-and-long-term-lessons

The "Making science the centre of your life" slide

https://twitter.com/hertzpodcast/status/832501121893724160

Facebook page

Twitter account

36: Statistical inconsistencies in published research

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:00:00 +0100

In episode 34 we covered a blog post that highlighted questionable analytical approaches in psychology. That post mentioned four studies that resulted from this approach, which a team of researchers took a closer look into. Dan and James discuss the statistical inconsistencies that the authors reported in a recent preprint.

Some of the topics covered:

Trump (of course)
A summary of the preprint
The GRIM test to detect inconsistencies
The researchers that accidently administered the equivalent of 300 cups of coffee to study participants
How do we prevent inconsistent reporting?
21 word solution for research transparency
Journals mandating statistical inconsistency checks, such as 'statcheck'

Links

The pre-print
https://peerj.com/preprints/2748/

'The grad student that didn't say no' blog post
http://www.brianwansink.com/phd-advice/the-grad-student-who-never-said-no

The caffeine study
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-38744307

Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group lab handbook (see page 6 for open science practices)
http://www.bris.ac.uk/media-library/sites/expsych/documents/targ/TARG%20Handbook%20161128.pdf

21 word solution
http://spsp.org/sites/default/files/dialogue_26(2).pdf

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Twitter account
https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast

35: A manifesto for reproducible science

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss a new paper in the inaugural issue of Nature Human Behaviour, "A manifesto for reproducible science".

Some of the topics covered:

What's a manfesto for reproducibility doing in a Nature group journal?
Registered reports
The importance of incentives to actually make change happen
What people should report vs. what they actually report
A common pitfall of published meta-analyses
The reliance of metrics in hiring decisions and the impact of open science practices
Tone police
How do we transition to open science practices?
SSRN preprints being bought by Elsevier
Authors getting gouged by copyediting costs (and solutions)
Does being 'double-blind' extend to doing your analysis blind
Trial monitoring is expensive

Links

The paper
http://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0021

Our paper on reporting standards in heart rate variability
http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v6/n5/full/tp201673a.html

Equator guidelines
http://www.equator-network.org

Facebook page

Twitter account

https://www.twitter.com/robinnkok

34: E-health (with Robin Kok)

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 22 Dec 2016 14:00:00 +0100

Dan and James have their very first guest! For this episode they're joined by Robin Kok (University of Southern Denmark) to talk e-health. They also cover a recent blog post that inadvertently highlighted questionable research practices in psychology.

Some of the topics covered:

The grad student who never said no
Postdoc work/life balance
Questionable research practices
Torturing data (with rattan sticks)
Using the GRIM test to assess data accuracy
Unpaid internships
Saying 'yes' to opportunities that come your way
The Myers-Briggs test is rubbish
What is e-health?
Are e-health interventions efficacious?
e-health intervention implementation issues
The poor quality of psych intervention smartphone apps
Using "Facebook Live" to broadcast conference presentations
The future of e-health

Links

Robin's twitter account

"The grad student who never said no" blog post

http://www.brianwansink.com/phd-types-only/the-grad-student-who-never-said-no

The Buzzfeed quiz on 'Which Disney princess are you?' (James is Belle)

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mccarricksean/which-disney-princes-are-you?utm_term=.riNJn5DbW#.ci9gL3Xq8

XKXD TornadoGuard comic

https://xkcd.com/937/

The efficacy of e-health interventions

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wps.20151/abstract

Wild West eHealth: Time to Hold our Horses?

www.ehps.net/ehp/index.php/contents/article/download/765/pdf_44

Smartphone app interventions

http://www.jmir.org/2013/11/e247/

Facebook page

Twitter account

Special Guest: Robin Kok.

33: Zombie theories

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 16 Dec 2016 09:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss Zombie theories, which are scientific ideas that continue to live on in the absence of evidence. Why do these ideas persist and how do we kill them for good?

Some of the topics covered:

Why do some ideas live on?
Zombie theories in heart rate variability research
Reasons why zombie theories proliferate more in the social sciences
Attractiveness and simplicity
Theories become brands
Oxytocin zombie theories
The power of shaming
Ideas are corrected more quickly in smaller fields
James' new interest in Cow ECG
People using science as a weapon to open up hip pockets
How do we kill these zombies for good?
Manual vs. automated PubMed comments
What's the impact of paper retraction on future citations?
How do you correct the scientific record?

Links

Facebook page

Twitter account

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/11/e012914.full

32: Can worrying about getting sick make you sicker?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss a new population study that linked health anxiety data with future heart disease.

Some of the topics covered:

Web MD and health anxiety
How would healthy anxiety contribute to heart disease?
A summary of the study
Ischemic heart disease = coronary artery disease
Do people with healthy anxiety take better care of thier health?
Don't be fooled by percentage increase of risk for something that's rare
There are some things you can't just randomize
The pros and cons of big data collection

Links

The paper

Facebook page

Twitter account

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2569454

31: Discover your psychiatric risk with this one weird trick

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss a recent study of over one million Swedish men that found that higher resting heart rate late adolescence was associated with an increased risk for subsequent psychiatric illness.

Some of the topics covered:

How did these authors get such an enormous dataset?
The benefits of testing so many people
What we liked about the study (hint: lots of things)
Measuring cardiovascular efficiency using a cycle ergometer
The pitfalls of self-reported physical activity
How the media covered this study
Contextual factors - does the testing environment induce anxiety?
Co-morbidity in psychiatry
What would James do with 200,000 ECGs strips?

Links

The paper

The Daily Mail story

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3875062/Why-heartbeat-teenager-affect-later-life-Boys-high-blood-pressure-risk-mental-health-problems-adults.html?linkId=30382089

Facebook page

Twitter account

30: Authorship

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss authorship in the biomedical sciences

29: Learning new skills

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Sun, 16 Oct 2016 14:00:00 +0200

Dan and James talk about how they learn new things.

Some of the topics discussed:

Internet memes
Consolidating old ideas rather than learning new ones
Why learn a new skill when you just get someone else to do it?
A lesson of not having a good understanding statistical software...
James and Dan butt heads about meta-analysis (again)
Learning new things is interesting
How did people learn things before the internet?
How to follow things on Twitter without being on Twitter

Links

Bayes factor paper with 'primer' paper matrix

https://alexanderetz.com/2016/02/07/understanding-bayes-how-to-become-a-bayesian-in-eight-easy-steps/

Facebook page

Twitter account

28: Positive developments in biomedical science

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 18:00:00 +0200

Pre-registration, p-hacking, power, protocols. All these concepts are pretty mainstream in 2016 but hardly discussed 5 years ago. In this episode, James and Dan talk about these ideas and other developments in biomedical science.

Some of the topics discussed:

James loves blinded reviews, scihub
Dan loves protocols, learning stats through social media, reproducible science

Links

The COMPARE initiative

http://compare-trials.org

"Give me the F-ing PDF" Chrome extension

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/give-me-the-f-ing-pdf/iekjpaipocoglamgpjoehfdemffdmami/related

Facebook page

Twitter account

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuXIq7OazQ

27: Complaints and grievances

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 23 Sep 2016 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss complaints and grievances. Stay tuned for part 2 where things get positive.

Some of the topics discussed:

Conflicts of interest
Criticism in psychology
Why does there seem to be so much bad blood in psychology?
Retracted papers: fraud or sloppiness?
Authors not acknowledging your peer-review remarks
The short-term nature of research
The benefits of 'centers of excellence'

Links

The 'vibe of the thing' scene from 'The Castle' (Great Aussie film)

Facebook page

Twitter account

http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/08/31/072660

26: Interpreting effect sizes

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 09 Sep 2016 21:00:00 +0200

When interpreting the magnitude of group differences using effect sizes, researchers often rely on Cohen's guidelines for small, medium, and large effects. However, Cohen originally proposed these guidelines as a fall back when the distribution of effect sizes was unknown. Despite the hundreds of available studies comparing heart rate variability (HRV), Cohen's guidelines are still used for interpretation. In this episode, Dan discusses his recent preprint describing an effect size distribution analysis on HRV studies.

Some of the topics discussed:

A summary of Dan's preprint
What is an effect size?
What can an effect size distribution tell us?
How effect sizes can inform study planning
How close are Cohen's guidelines to the distribution of HRV effect sizes?
What samples sizes are appropriate?
Pre-publication review vs. post-publication review
Statcheck

Links

The preprint article

Statcheck

https://mbnuijten.com/statcheck/

Facebook page

Twitter account

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01247/full

25: Misunderstanding p-values

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Sat, 27 Aug 2016 14:00:00 +0200

P-values are universal, but do we really know what they mean? In this episode, Dan and James discuss a recent paper describing the failure to correctly interpret p-values in a sample of academic psychologists.

Some of the topics discussed:

Common p-value misconceptions
James tests Dan on his p-value knowledge
p-values vs. effect size
The problem of sample size with p-value interpretation
The Facebook mood manipulation study
Data peeking
Equivalent p-values do not represent equivalent results
Meta-analytical thinking
Using significance as a categorical factor
Statistical vs. clinical significance
Clinical trial registration and 'secondary outcome creep'
Dan and James answer listener questions
Science communicator vs. scientist
Grant titles and the 'Pub test'
NASA and social media

Links

The article

Geoff Cumming's book (we got the name completely wrong - sorry Geoff!)

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-The-New-Statistics-Meta-Analysis-ebook/dp/B007M9D76G/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1QWKES82EP85DBAEKNT1

The story on research passing the 'pub' test

https://theconversation.com/if-youre-going-to-ridicule-research-do-your-homework-64238

Real scientists

http://realscientists.org

Facebook page

Twitter account

https://medium.com/the-spike/how-a-happy-moment-for-neuroscience-is-a-sad-moment-for-science-c4ba00336e9c#.x3sea13i1

24: Incentive structures in science

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 20:00:00 +0200

Science funding has a series of built in incentive structures, but what sort of science does this produce?

Some of the topics discussed:

Feedback from our 'Public health and Pokemon' episode (#22)
Incentive structures in science
What we should be doing in science compared to what we are doing
Quantity vs. Quality
The analysis of Trump's tweets for negativity vs. positivity
Pre-registration
How much detail do you need to go into when it comes to pre-registering an analysis
APS journal badges - they're working!
Data sharing makes you more careful with your data
Solutions to the incentive problem have to come from the policy level
The grant funding lottery system proposal
The PhD oversupply
Gaming the system
James wants to mandate science communication
Dan wants to include replication studies in PhD programs
Scientist names that suit their research area

Links

The article on incentive structures

The Allen brain atlas

http://observatory.brain-map.org

Analysis of Trump's tweets

http://varianceexplained.org/r/trump-tweets/

Facebook page

Twitter account

https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/aug/05/im-a-serious-academic-not-a-professional-instagrammer

23: Serious academics

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 11 Aug 2016 20:00:00 +0200

Can you be a "serious academic" while still posting photos on Instagram? In this episode, James and Dan discuss a recent article bemoaning the infiltration of the "selfie epidemic" into academia.

Some of the topics discussed:

James and Dan share their thoughts on the article
The REAL 'c' word....
Social media and conferences
Snapchat + academics = snapademics
Using Instagram stories to share you research
Why "PHD comics" is so successful
Criticism in academia
Listener question 1: What's your favourite part of research?
Listener question 2: What's your favourite technique or experiment to perform?
Listener question 3: What's a funny story from being an academic?

Links

The article

A response to the article

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/aug/05/im-a-non-serious-academic-i-make-no-apologies-for-this

Snapademics

https://twitter.com/snapademia

Facebook page

Twitter account

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/gaming/2016/07/pokemon_or_cholesterol_medication_a_quiz.html

22: Pokemon and public health

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 21:00:00 +0200

Pokemon Go is sweeping the world and getting people walking again! But is the Pokemon Go 'model' a golden opportunity to tackle obesity or just another fad?

Some of the topics discussed:

James plays "Pokemon or Cholesterol medication?"
Dan tries to explain Pokemon Go to James
James' first contact with Pokemon Go "trainers"
Should health interventions be modeled on Pokemon Go?
Other exercise augmented reality health apps
What's the app's endgame?
Can health authorities copy this model?
We make a correction from episode 17: PLoS is in fact a non-profit journal, not a for-profit journal
Dan and James answer two listener questions: i) The dumbest things they've ever done in the lab (both related to email faux pas) ii) How often should lab meetings be run
The importance of PROPERLY piloting your experiment
If you don't know the person in the meeting that takes up too much time, it's probably you.

Links

The quiz

Facebook page

Twitter account

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632231632529X

21: This is your brain on steroids

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:00:00 +0200

It's well established that steroid use is associated with many adverse healthy outcomes, but what does it actually do to your brain?

Dan and James discuss an interesting new paper that compared brain structure in long-term steroid users and non-using weightlifters.

Some of the topics discussed:

A summary of the study
How are steroids typically used?
What are the differences in use between sports?
The recruitment of 'real' users
James gives Dan a surprise Norwegian test (he doesn't do too well)
The things Dan and James liked about the study (hint: many things)
Steroid use in women
Dose-dependent effects of steroids
Folk beliefs surrounding steroid use
James' goal of making his cat as jacked as possible
If you have a great study, there's no need to oversell
James' experience of participating in a growth hormone trial

Links

The paper

Facebook page

Twitter account

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4911349/

20: Sample sizes in psychology studies

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:00:00 +0200

Can psychologists learn more by studying fewer people?

Some of the topics discussed:

Brexit and science
Can the UK take the 'Norway' option?
Horizon 2020
The impact on personnel and research training
Italian coffee
Listener feedback
We're sorry for the chewing sound from episode 17!
Intraindividual replication vs. larger sample sizes
What sort of experiments are better suited to detailed within-subject studies?
Is 'quantified self' data more valid than experimental data?
What if you happen to recruit a 'weird' person?

Links

The paper

Facebook page

Twitter account

http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/06/22/scan.nsw078

19: Let us spray: oxytocin and spirituality

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss a recent paper on intranasal oxytocin and spirituality

Some of the topics discussed:

A summary of a recent paper on oxytocin and spirituality
Why within-subject designs are a better choice for oxytocin research
The physiology of nasal administration
How do you control for differences in nasal environment
Hypothesis-driven vs. exploratory research
Oxytocin pathway gene
ANCOVA and Lord's paradox (yep, it's called that)
Dan applauding the authors for posting ALL their data online
James disagrees with Dan on approaches to pre-registering studies
James promises never to chew during a recording (sorry!)
Producing research vs. actually reading other people's research
Our first citation (sort of)
How the replication crisis is the fact that we're not doing any
Heart rate variability in oysters (and other animals)

Links

The paper

Dan's blog post on intranasal oxytocin administration considerations

https://medium.com/@dsquintana/intranasal-drug-administration-in-psychiatry-80d076f1abdd#.dsdrrohdu

Dan's paper on the promise and pitfalls of intranasal administration

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26552590

The data from the paper

https://osf.io/mjhzw/

Our first (blog post) citation

https://rhythmicpsychology.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/shock-shock-horror-horror/

Can we replicate the replication crisis?

https://theconversation.com/is-psychology-really-in-crisis-60869

Facebook page

Twitter account

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22686633

18: Data sharing

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:00:00 +0200

Withholding data: bad science or scientific misconduct?

Some of the topics discussed:

Dan raises privacy issues surrounding sharing data
What are the limits of AI to identify people from 'un-identifiable' data?
The new age of sharing data
What grinds Dan's gears
Requesting data from people who said that they'd actually share their data
James' experiences with requesting data
Dan offers a solution for accessing data via an independent 3rd party
When is a data request 'vexatious'?
Hiding data vs. just being lazy with data management
The importance of sharing your analysis code along with the data
Version controlling manuscripts
How much will open data actually improve science?
'Fake' journals masquerading as real ones
Australia's windfarm commissioner (a real thing, unfortunalty)
Australian coffee vs. the rest of the world
Our Twitter followers numbers have surpassed our Facebook fans!

Links

The paper on requesting data

The blog post on whether withholding your data is scientific misconduct

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/07/03/data-secrecy-bad-science-or-scientific-misconduct/

Facebook page

Twitter account

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy

17: Journals: Do we need them?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:00:00 +0200

Do we really need scientific journals?

Some of the topics discussed:

James trolling predatory journals with jibberish papers on the 'DONG' effect
How do these spammy journal invitation emails actually work?
Formal journals vs. preprint servers
The shift to preprints in psychology
Why do some journals forbid preprints?
An article defending the big publishers
How much does it really cost to have an online journal?
What if the public funders were to set up thier own journals?
What's the role of post-pubication review?
Do journals provide added value?
James' brush with the 'established' media

Links

Publisher policies on preprints

How much do universities pay for journal subscriptions?

https://gowers.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/elsevier-journals-some-facts/

Facebook page

Twitter account

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27255891

16: What makes a good psych study?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:00:00 +0200

What are the defining characteristics of a good psychology study? We received this excellent question from a listener and decided to do a whole episode on this idea.

Some of the topics discussed:

When’s the last time you saw a psych study that only reported a t-test?
Dan and James’ new paper on worry and heart rate variability
Skepticism towards studies with many variables and ‘novel’ statistical approaches (that tend to always provide marvellous results)
Repeated measures ANOVAs vs. linear mixed models
Publishing convenient ideas, even if they’re wrong
Fishing expeditions
The ‘nocebo’ effect in action
What are markers of study quality?
Pre-registering studies - can it be gamed?
The gradual improvement of psychology studies

Links

Dan and James' new paper on worry and heart rate variability

The paper that said "Encouraging experimental psychologists to use LMMs was like giving shotguns to toddlers.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25657634

Facebook page

Twitter account

15: Software and coding

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 14:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss software and coding, including the tools they use

Links (lots this week)

Introduction to Python course - http://python.swaroopch.com //// R markdown - http://rmarkdown.rstudio.com //// GraphPad - http://www.graphpad.com //// JASP - https://jasp-stats.org ////
Igor - https://www.wavemetrics.com/products/igorpro/igorpro.htm //// Canva - https://www.canva.com ////Omnifocus - https://www.omnigroup.com/omnifocus ////Slack - https://slack.com //// PsychoPy - http://www.psychopy.org //// 1Password - https://1password.com //// Papers - http://papersapp.com //// http://www.manuscriptsapp.com

Facebook page

Twitter account

https://peerj.com/preprints/2064v1/

14: Science communication

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 08:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss public engagement, science communication, and the internet outrage machine.

Links:

James' GRIM pre-print

Dan's meta-analysis paper

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01549/full

Facebook page

Twitter account

http://gawker.com/i-left-my-ph-d-program-in-chemistry-a-few-years-back-wh-1774236393

13: Academic horror stories

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 26 May 2016 22:00:00 +0200

Dan and James discuss a few academic horror stories sent in by their listeners.

Links:

The Gawker story on leaving academia

Equator network

http://www.equator-network.org

Jack Johnson (the singer, not the boxer from the turn of the century)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seZMOTGCDag

Abominable Putridity (the band James mentioned)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JYFgoaEeaQ

Facebook page

Twitter account

http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v6/n5/abs/tp201673a.html

12: Reporting heart rate variability studies

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Sun, 22 May 2016 00:00:00 +0200

Heart rate variability is becoming incredibly popular in the biobehavioral sciences yet there's no standard for how this research is reported. In this episode, Dan and James discuss their latest paper where they propose heart rate variability reporting guidelines. They also talk about saunas (why not?) and why 'sympathovagal balance' should be abandoned.

Links:

Dan and James' guidelines paper

Dan and Gail's heart rate variability meta-analysis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26447819

Quora

https://www.quora.com

Whole body hyperthermia study

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27172277

Facebook page

Twitter account

11: The placebo effect

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Tue, 10 May 2016 12:00:00 +0200

In this episode, James and Dan discuss issues surrounding the placebo effect.

Links:

Facebook page

Twitter account

https://soundcloud.com/startup-scientist-podcast

Dan's other podcast

10: Failure

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 04 May 2016 23:00:00 +0200

In this episode, James and Dan talk about failure. What's the benefit of openly sharing your failures - is this an antidote to the imposter syndrome or something only the privileged few can afford to do?

https://soundcloud.com/startup-scientist-podcast

9: What happens if your research is wrong?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 08:30:00 +0200

In this episode, James and Dan discuss what happens if your research is wrong. They talk about the recent controversy surrounding tDCS, why many people don't hold negative results to the same scrutiny as positive results, and the hype cycle of research.

Links:

Dan's new Startup Scientist podcast

Vestibular stimulation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_vestibular_stimulation

The one slide on the tDCS presentation that Dan found

https://twitter.com/nomorewires/status/717384486888022016

The hype cycle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle

Facebook page

Twitter account

8: The PhD to Postdoc transition

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 20:00:00 +0200

In this episode, James and Dan discuss how to navigate the PhD to Postdoc transition. They provide advice to a hypothetical first-year graduate student and discuss the realities of the postdoc job market.

Links:

Propel Careers - https://www.propelcareers.com

James' blog post - https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/12-thing-you-should-know-before-you-start-a-phd-9c064a979e8#.iqqwzf55s

Facebook page

Twitter account

https://theconversation.com

Episode 7: 7: The writing process

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Fri, 15 Apr 2016 21:00:00 +0200

How do you write a lot and do it well? In this episode, James and Dan discuss the writing process and the tools they use to get things done.

Links:

The Conversation

BreakTime app

http://breaktimeapp.com

Tomato timer

http://tomato-timer.com

Jelte Wichert's paper

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0026828

Facebook page

Twitter account

6: The research pipeline - getting from idea to publication

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 17:00:00 +0200

In this episode, James and Dan talk about getting from research idea to publication. They discuss the ethical approval process, getting research published, and share tips for running experiments. They also cover some of the software that they use in their own research: JASP and Papers.

Links:

JASP - https://jasp-stats.org

Papers - http://www.papersapp.com

Authorea - https://www.authorea.com

Facebook page

Twitter account

5: Do you even replicate?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:00:00 +0200

In this episode, James and Dan talk about replication in science, self-control, and the file-drawer problem in oxytocin research.

Links:

Facebook page

Twitter account

4: Meta-analysis or mega-silliness?

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:00:00 +0100

Meta-analysis has become an increasingly popular tool used by many scientists to synthesise data. However, it's not without its detractors — from H. J. Eysenck, Ph.D., calling it "an exercise in mega-silliness" in 1978, to J. A. J. Heathers Ph.D., describing its use as a "profound moral failing" (he's half-serious) in 2016.

In this episode, Dan defends meta-analysis against more recent criticisms put forward by James and offers suggestions on how meta-analysis can be improved.

Links:

PRISMA statement - http://www.prisma-statement.org/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast

3: Scientific publishing

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:00:00 +0100

Dan and James talk about Scihub and open access publishing.

2: Nutrition and Psychiatry

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:00:00 +0100

Dan and James talk about nutrition and psychiatry. They also introduce themselves (you know, because that's what you do for your second episode) and explain the origin of their podcast name.

1: So you want to measure heart rate variability...

everythinghertzpodcast@gmail.com (Dan Quintana) — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 21:00:00 +0100

Dan and James discuss what to do if you want to collect heart rate variability (HRV) data, oxytocin parties (yes, they're a thing), and the peer review process.