Everything Hertz

Everything Hertz episodes:

• 06.03.2024

  181: Down the rabbit hole

  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...

  
• 05.02.2024

  180: Consortium peer reviews

  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. Other things they cover and links: Which studies should we spend time replicating? The business...

  
• 04.03.2024

  179: Discovery vs. maintenance

  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...

  
• 02.29.2024

  178: Alerting researchers about retractions

  Dan and James discuss the Retractobot service, which emails authors about papers they've cited that have been retracted. What should authors do if they discover a paper they've cited has been retracted after they published their paper?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

  
• 01.31.2024

  177: Plagiarism

  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...

  
• 12.29.2023

  176: Tracking academic workloads

  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...

  
• 12.07.2023

  175: Defending against the scientific dark arts

  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...

  
• 11.01.2023

  174: Smug missionaries with test tubes

  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...

  
• 10.01.2023

  173: How do science journalists evaluate psychology papers?

  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...

  
• 08.31.2023

  172: In defence of the discussion section

  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...

  
• 07.20.2023

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

  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...

  
• 06.23.2023

  170: Holy sheet

  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...

  
• 05.31.2023

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

  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...

  
• 04.27.2023

  168: Meta-meta-science

  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...

  
• 03.16.2023

  167: Diluted effect sizes

  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...

  
• 01.25.2023

  166: Is science becoming less disruptive over time?

  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...

  
• 12.30.2022

  165: Self-promotion

  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...

  
• 11.28.2022

  164: The great migration

  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...

  
• 11.07.2022

  163: eLife's new peer review model

  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...

  
• 10.17.2022

  162: Status bias in peer review

  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 Dan...

  
• 09.12.2022

  161: The memo (with Brian Nosek)

  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...

  
• 08.31.2022

  160: Whistleblowing

  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 Dan on twitter James on twitter Everything Hertz on twitter Everything Hertz on Facebook Support us on Patreon and get bonus...

  
• 08.15.2022

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

  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...

  
• 08.01.2022

  158: Word limits

  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...

  
• 07.11.2022

  157: Limitations

  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...

  
• 06.21.2022

  156: Looking for seeders

  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...

  
• 05.30.2022

  155: Don't you know who I am?

  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...

  
• 05.09.2022

  154: When the evidence is constructed around the narrative

  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...

  
• 04.18.2022

  153: Shame shame shame

  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...

  
• 04.04.2022

  152: Sorry Not Sorry

  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...

  
• 03.21.2022

  151: The dirty dozen

  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...

  
• 02.28.2022

  150: Why can't you do nothing?

  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...

  
• 02.14.2022

  149: Medical misinformation (with Rohin Francis)

  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...

  
• 01.31.2022

  148: Academic reference letters

  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...

  
• 01.17.2022

  147: The $7000 golden ticket

  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...

  
• 12.27.2021

  146: Skills pay bills

  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...

  
• 12.13.2021

  145: Our boat is sinking slightly slower

  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...

  
• 11.15.2021

  144: The role of luck in academia

  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...

  
• 11.01.2021

  143: A little less conversation, a little more action

  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...

  
• 10.18.2021

  142: Red flags in academia [Live episode]

  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...

  
• 10.04.2021

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

  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...

  
• 09.20.2021

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

  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...

  
• 09.06.2021

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

  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...

  
• 08.16.2021

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

  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...

  
• 08.02.2021

  137: Ten rules for improving academic work-life balance

  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...

  
• 07.19.2021

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

  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...

  
• 07.05.2021

  135: A loss of confidence

  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...

  
• 06.21.2021

  134: Paywalled questionnaires

  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...

  
• 06.07.2021

  133: Manuscript submission fees

  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...

  
• 05.17.2021

  132: Post-pandemic academia

  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...