Everything Hertz

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 Kristi...

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 justifcation for holding back the public posting of data becuase you're not done with your analyses We have a new episode partner, Scite ! Scite helps researchers quickly see how a research paper has been cited a...

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. Other points and links: Send in your audio question at our website Listen to our episode with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti , on memes, TikTok, and science communication T...

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 fo...

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 Behavio...

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 s...

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...

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 S...

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 academi...

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...

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 answer an audio question from Kim Mitchell . Submit your audio questions via our website Nick Brown's blogpost on the video game "study" We ran a live survey using Prolific! Go to prolific.com/everythinghert...

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/everythingher...

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 Officia...

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?...

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 duri...

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...

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 stu...

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...

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 2...

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 “ lo...

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 crea...

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...

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 p...

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 in...

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...