Podcasts by Everything Hertz
Methodology, scientific life, and bad language. Co-hosted by Dr. Dan Quintana (University of Oslo) and Dr. James Heathers (Cipher Skin)
Further podcasts by Dan Quintana
Podcast on the topic Sozialwissenschaften
All episodes
175: Defending against the scientific dark arts from 2023-12-07T14:00
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...
Listen
174: Smug missionaries with test tubes from 2023-11-01T21:15
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 ...
Listen
173: How do science journalists evaluate psychology papers? from 2023-10-01T08:00
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 psy...
Listen
172: In defence of the discussion section from 2023-08-31T21:00
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 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11...
Listen
171: The easiest person to fool is yourself (with Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris) from 2023-07-20T19:00
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' stud...
Listen
170: Holy sheet from 2023-06-23T15:45
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 ...
Listen
169: Using big data to understand behavior (Live episode with Sandra Matz) from 2023-05-31T10:00
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 LinksEverybody lies book (https://www.a...
Listen
168: Meta-meta-science from 2023-04-27T08:00
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. LinksOur upcoming show on May 8th, which...
Listen
167: Diluted effect sizes from 2023-03-16T08:00
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. LinksThe C...
Listen
166: Is science becoming less disruptive over time? from 2023-01-25T09:00
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 (https://everythinghertz.com/...
Listen
165: Self-promotion from 2022-12-30T09:00
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...
Listen
164: The great migration from 2022-11-28T09:00
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 (https://mas.to/@...
Listen
163: eLife's new peer review model from 2022-11-07T08:00
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...
Listen
162: Status bias in peer review from 2022-10-17T09:00
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 (https:...
Listen
161: The memo (with Brian Nosek) from 2022-09-12T08:00
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, ...
Listen
160: Whistleblowing from 2022-08-31T14:00
Dan and James share ten rules for whistleblowing academic misconduct. The Safe Faculty Project (https://www.safefacultyproject.org/) websiteSLAPP statues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategiclaw...
Listen
159: Peer review isn't working (with Saloni Dattani) from 2022-08-15T10:15
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...
Listen
158: Word limits from 2022-08-01T08:00
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 (https://doi....
Listen
157: Limitations from 2022-07-11T19:00
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, especial...
Listen
156: Looking for seeders from 2022-06-21T23:30
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 alt...
Listen
155: Don't you know who I am? from 2022-05-30T09:00
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 (...
Listen
154: When the evidence is constructed around the narrative from 2022-05-09T09:00
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 (https://en.wikipedi...
Listen
153: Shame shame shame from 2022-04-18T09:45
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 HA...
Listen
152: Sorry Not Sorry from 2022-04-04T08:00
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 ...
Listen
151: The dirty dozen from 2022-03-21T08:00
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 academi...
Listen
150: Why can't you do nothing? from 2022-02-28T08:00
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 o...
Listen
149: Medical misinformation (with Rohin Francis) from 2022-02-14T08:00
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...
Listen
148: Academic reference letters from 2022-01-31T08:00
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 tha...
Listen
147: The $7000 golden ticket from 2022-01-17T08:00
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 (https://taylorandfrancis....
Listen
146: Skills pay bills from 2021-12-27T08:00
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 import...
Listen
145: Our boat is sinking slightly slower from 2021-12-13T08:00
We discuss the results from the cancer biology reproducibility project, the inevitable comparisons with reproducibility in psychology, and authorship expectations for posting public datasets. Link...
Listen
144: The role of luck in academia from 2021-11-15T08:00
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 presentati...
Listen
143: A little less conversation, a little more action from 2021-11-01T08:00
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) c...
Listen
142: Red flags in academia [Live episode] from 2021-10-18T08:00
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...
Listen
141: Why we should diversify study samples (with Sakshi Ghai) from 2021-10-04T08:00
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 beha...
Listen
140: You can’t buy cat biscuits with ‘thank you’ emails from 2021-09-20T08:00
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 pee...
Listen
139: Open science from a funder's perspective (with Ashley Farley) from 2021-09-06T08:00
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 Foundati...
Listen
138: Preprints in the time of coronavirus (with Michele Avissar-Whiting) from 2021-08-16T08:00
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...
Listen
137: Ten rules for improving academic work-life balance from 2021-08-02T08:00
Dan and James share their thoughts on a recent paper (https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009124) that proposes ten rules for improving academic work-life balanc...
Listen
136: Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewed journals? from 2021-07-19T08:00
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 h...
Listen
135: A loss of confidence from 2021-07-05T08:00
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 res...
Listen
134: Paywalled questionnaires from 2021-06-21T08:00
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...
Listen
133: Manuscript submission fees from 2021-06-07T08:00
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...
Listen
132: Post-pandemic academia from 2021-05-17T08:00
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 Norwe...
Listen
131: Long live the overhead projector! from 2021-05-03T08:00
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 over...
Listen
130: Normalizing retractions (with Dorothy Bishop) from 2021-04-19T08:00
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 ma...
Listen
129: Transparency audits from 2021-04-05T07:45
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 i...
Listen
128: How do you generate new research ideas? from 2021-03-15T08:00
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 ...
Listen
127: Speak up or shut up? from 2021-03-01T08:00
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. T...
Listen
126: The division of scientific labor (with Saloni Dattani) from 2021-02-15T08:00
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) t...
Listen
125: Upon reasonable request from 2021-02-01T08:00
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...
Listen
124: From Ptolemy to Takeshi's Castle from 2021-01-18T08:00
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 ...
Listen
123: Authenticated anonymity (with Michael Eisen) from 2021-01-04T08:00
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...
Listen
122: Reoptimizing scientific publishing for the internet age (with Michael Eisen) from 2020-12-21T07:45
The internet should have transformed science publishing, but it didn't. We chat with Michael Eisen (Editor-in-Chief of eLife (https://elifesciences.org/)) about reoptimizing scientific publishing a...
Listen
121: Transparent peer review from 2020-12-07T08:00
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 scholarl...
Listen
120: How false beliefs spread in science (with Cailin O'Connor) from 2020-11-16T08:00
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 s...
Listen
119: Rules of thumb from 2020-11-02T08:00
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.More info and links: Is there any justifcati...
Listen
118: Evidence-free gatekeeping from 2020-10-19T08:00
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...
Listen
117: How we peer-review papers from 2020-10-05T08:00
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 j...
Listen
116: In my opinion from 2020-09-21T08:00
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 dese...
Listen
115: A modest proposal from 2020-09-07T08:00
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-scie...
Listen
114: Diversity in science (with Jess Wade) from 2020-08-17T08:00
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 w...
Listen
113: Citation needed from 2020-08-03T08:00
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 d...
Listen
112: Leaving academia from 2020-07-27T08:00
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. Ja...
Listen
111: The cumulative advantage of academic capital (with Chris Jackson) from 2020-07-06T08:00
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 ...
Listen
110: Red flags for errors in papers from 2020-06-15T08:00
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? More details and links...We answe...
Listen
109: Open scientific publishing [Live episode] from 2020-06-01T08:00
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 percepti...
Listen
108: Requiem for a Screen from 2020-05-18T08:00
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 "Ps...
Listen
107: Memes, TikTok, and science communication (with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti) from 2020-05-04T08:00
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 m...
Listen
106: Science on the run from 2020-04-20T08:00
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 ot...
Listen
105: Tell it like it is (with Marike Schiffer) from 2020-04-06T08:00
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 evaluate...
Listen
104: Now we'll discover which meetings could've been emails from 2020-03-16T08:00
Dan and James discuss the COVID-19 pandemic and how it's impacting academia Other things they discuss:Roy and HG's gymnastics commentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WxaTXqf85Y) from the Sydne...
Listen
103: Swiping right from 2020-03-02T08:00
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 (https://honi...
Listen
102: Master of none from 2020-02-17T08:00
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 acade...
Listen
101: Punishing research misconduct from 2020-02-03T08:00
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 overv...
Listen
100: Hundredth episode live special (with Daniel Lakens, Amy Orben, and Chris Chambers) from 2020-01-27T08:00
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 episo...
Listen
99: Science advocacy from 2020-01-06T08:00
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...
Listen
98: Episode titles are redundant, at best (with Sophia Crüwell) from 2019-12-16T08:00
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 ...
Listen
97: Slow science from 2019-12-02T08:00
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 ...
Listen
96: The chaotic state of doctoral research from 2019-11-18T08:00
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 ...
Listen
95: All good presentations are alike; each bad presentation is bad in its own way from 2019-11-04T08:00
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/ja...
Listen
94: Predicting the replicability of research from 2019-10-21T08:00
Dan and James chat with Fiona Fidler (University of Melbourne), who is leading the repliCATS project (https://replicats.research.unimelb.edu.au/), which aims to develop accurate techniques to elici...
Listen
93: Double-blind peer review vs. open science from 2019-10-07T04:00
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 d...
Listen
92: Chaos in the brickyard from 2019-09-16T08:00
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 Th...
Listen
91: Shifting the goalposts in statistics (with Kristin Sainani) from 2019-09-02T09:00
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 ...
Listen
90: Mo data mo problems from 2019-08-19T08:00
Dan and James discuss two listener questions on performing secondary data analysis and the potential for prestige to creep into open science reforms. More info and links:Why generate your own datas...
Listen
89: Conflicts of interest in psychology (with Tom Chivers) from 2019-08-05T08:00
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 (https://www.nature.com/articles/d...
Listen
88: The pomodoro episode from 2019-07-15T08:45
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...
Listen
87: Improving the scientific poster (with Mike Morrison) from 2019-07-01T09:00
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 'bett...
Listen
86: Should I stay or should I go? from 2019-06-17T09:00
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 cr...
Listen
85: GWAS big teeth you have, grandmother (with Kevin Mitchell) from 2019-06-03T08:00
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...
Listen
84: A GPS in the Garden of Forking Paths (with Amy Orben) from 2019-05-21T18:00
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 al...
Listen
83: Back to our dirty unwashed roots from 2019-05-08T10:00
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, ...
Listen
82: More janitors and fewer architects from 2019-04-15T08:45
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 y...
Listen
81: Too Young To Know, Too Old To Care from 2019-04-01T08:00
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 commen...
Listen
80: Cites are not endorsements (with Sean Rife) from 2019-03-17T23:00
We chat with Sean Rife, who the co-founder of scite.ai (https://scite.ai), a start-up that combines natural language processing with a network of experts to evaluate the veracity of scientific work...
Listen
79: Clinical trial reporting (with Henry Drysdale) from 2019-03-03T21:00
We chat with Henry Drysdale (University of Oxford), co-founder of the COMPare trials project (http://compare-trials.org), which compared clinical trial registrations with reported outcomes in five ...
Listen
78: Large-scale collaborative science (with Lisa DeBruine) from 2019-02-17T21:00
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. Disc...
Listen
77: Promiscuous expertise from 2019-02-04T08:30
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 th...
Listen
76: Open peer review from 2019-01-21T08:00
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. T...
Listen
75: Overlay journals (with Daniele Marinazzo) from 2019-01-07T16:45
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. ...
Listen
74: Seeing double (with Elisabeth Bik) from 2018-12-19T08:00
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 fro...
Listen
73: Update your damn syllabus from 2018-12-03T11:00
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 s...
Listen
72: Anonymity in scientific publishing from 2018-11-16T07:00
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 an...
Listen
71: Moving for your job from 2018-11-05T13:00
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 educ...
Listen
70: Doubling-blinding dog balls from 2018-10-15T06:00
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 discu...
Listen
69: Open science tools (with Brian Nosek) from 2018-10-09T11:00
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 mak...
Listen
68: Friends don’t let friends believe in impact factors (with Nathan Hall) from 2018-09-03T13:00
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...
Listen
67: Shit Academics Say (with Nathan Hall) from 2018-08-20T09:00
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 ...
Listen
66: Ideal worlds vs grim truths from 2018-08-06T05:00
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 the...
Listen
65: Blockchain and open science (with Jon Brock) from 2018-07-16T06:00
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 ...
Listen
64: Salami slicing from 2018-07-02T05:00
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 conferen...
Listen
63: Science journalism (with Brian Resnick) from 2018-06-18T07:00
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 misrep...
Listen
62: Adopting open science practices (with Dorothy Bishop) from 2018-06-04T06:15
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:W...
Listen
61: Performance enhancing thugs (with Greg Nuckols) from 2018-05-21T06:00
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 befor...
Listen
60: This is more of a comment than a question from 2018-05-08T08:00
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 dur...
Listen
59: Rethinking the scientific journal (with Rickard Carlsson) from 2018-04-16T07:00
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 enviro...
Listen
58: Lessons from podcasting (with Simine Vazire) from 2018-04-02T07:00
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 s...
Listen
57: Radical Transparency (with Rebecca Willén) from 2018-03-15T23:00
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 re...
Listen
56: Registered reports (with Chris Chambers) from 2018-02-02T07:00
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 imple...
Listen
55: The proposal to redefine clinical trials from 2018-01-18T13:00
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 r...
Listen
54: Cuckoo Science from 2017-12-15T08:00
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 find...
Listen
53: Skin in the game from 2017-11-17T13:00
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 you...
Listen
52: Give p's a chance (with Daniel Lakens) from 2017-10-20T06:00
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? T...
Listen
51: Preprints (with Jessica Polka) from 2017-10-06T09:00
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...
Listen
50: Special 50th episode (LIVE) from 2017-09-14T16:00
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’ debat...
Listen
49: War and p's from 2017-07-31T22:00
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 ins...
Listen
48: Breaking up with the impact factor (with Jason Hoyt) from 2017-07-21T07:00
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 ...
Listen
47: Truth bombs from a methodological freedom fighter (with Anne Scheel) from 2017-07-07T08:00
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- Meth...
Listen
46: Statistical literacy (with Andy Field) from 2017-06-23T10:00
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 beh...
Listen
45: Conferences and conspiracy theories from 2017-06-02T15:00
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 a...
Listen
44: Who’s afraid of the New Bad People? (with Nick Brown) from 2017-05-19T18:00
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 nothin...
Listen
43: Death, taxes, and publication bias in meta-analysis (with Daniel Lakens) from 2017-05-05T09:00
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...
Listen
42: Some of my best friends are Bayesians (with Daniel Lakens) from 2017-04-21T08:00
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...
Listen
41: Objecting to published research (with William Gunn) from 2017-04-07T18:00
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 diff...
Listen
40: Meta-research (with Michèle Nuijten) from 2017-03-24T06:00
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 inconsist...
Listen
39: Academic hipsters from 2017-03-10T09:00
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...
Listen
38: Work/life balance - Part 2 from 2017-02-24T10:00
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 ...
Listen
37: Work/life balance in academia from 2017-02-17T10:00
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...
Listen
36: Statistical inconsistencies in published research from 2017-01-27T19:00
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 researcher...
Listen
35: A manifesto for reproducible science from 2017-01-20T14:00
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 doin...
Listen
34: E-health (with Robin Kok) from 2016-12-22T14:00
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 high...
Listen
33: Zombie theories from 2016-12-16T09:00
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 topic...
Listen
32: Can worrying about getting sick make you sicker? from 2016-12-01T10:00
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...
Listen
31: Discover your psychiatric risk with this one weird trick from 2016-11-16T21:00
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 illn...
Listen
30: Authorship from 2016-11-02T16:00
Dan and James discuss authorship in the biomedical sciences
Listen
29: Learning new skills from 2016-10-16T14:00
Dan and James talk about how they learn new things. Some of the topics discussed:Internet memes Consolidating old ideas rather than learning new onesWhy learn a new skill when you just get someone ...
Listen
28: Positive developments in biomedical science from 2016-09-30T18:00
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 dev...
Listen
27: Complaints and grievances from 2016-09-23T08:00
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 psychologyWhy does there seem to ...
Listen
26: Interpreting effect sizes from 2016-09-09T21:00
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 ...
Listen
25: Misunderstanding p-values from 2016-08-27T14:00
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 ps...
Listen
24: Incentive structures in science from 2016-08-17T20:00
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) I...
Listen
23: Serious academics from 2016-08-11T20:00
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. S...
Listen
22: Pokemon and public health from 2016-08-03T21:00
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...
Listen
21: This is your brain on steroids from 2016-07-22T15:00
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 br...
Listen
20: Sample sizes in psychology studies from 2016-07-13T13:00
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 trainin...
Listen
19: Let us spray: oxytocin and spirituality from 2016-07-06T13:00
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...
Listen
18: Data sharing from 2016-06-29T14:00
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-identi...
Listen
17: Journals: Do we need them? from 2016-06-22T20:00
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 actua...
Listen
16: What makes a good psych study? from 2016-06-15T19:00
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:W...
Listen
15: Software and coding from 2016-06-08T14:00
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.rstud...
Listen
14: Science communication from 2016-06-02T08:00
Dan and James discuss public engagement, science communication, and the internet outrage machine. Links:James' GRIM pre-print https://peerj.com/preprints/2064v1/Dan's meta-analysis paper http://...
Listen
13: Academic horror stories from 2016-05-26T22:00
Dan and James discuss a few academic horror stories sent in by their listeners. Links:The Gawker story on leaving academia http://gawker.com/i-left-my-ph-d-program-in-chemistry-a-few-years-back-wh...
Listen
12: Reporting heart rate variability studies from 2016-05-22T00:00
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 pa...
Listen
11: The placebo effect from 2016-05-10T12:00
In this episode, James and Dan discuss issues surrounding the placebo effect. Links:Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/Twitter account https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcas...
Listen
10: Failure from 2016-05-04T23:00
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...
Listen
9: What happens if your research is wrong? from 2016-04-28T08:30
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 scru...
Listen
8: The PhD to Postdoc transition from 2016-04-20T20:00
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 ...
Listen
Episode 7: 7: The writing process from 2016-04-15T21:00
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 https://theconversation.comBreak...
Listen
6: The research pipeline - getting from idea to publication from 2016-04-07T17:00
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. T...
Listen
5: Do you even replicate? from 2016-03-30T21:00
In this episode, James and Dan talk about replication in science, self-control, and the file-drawer problem in oxytocin research. Links:Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast...
Listen
4: Meta-analysis or mega-silliness? from 2016-03-22T18:00
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 me...
Listen
3: Scientific publishing from 2016-03-16T20:00
Dan and James talk about Scihub and open access publishing.
Listen
2: Nutrition and Psychiatry from 2016-03-09T20:00
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.
Listen
1: So you want to measure heart rate variability... from 2016-03-02T21:00
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.
Listen