Everything Hertz

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...

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...

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...

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 algorit...

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 inv...

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 dataset when you can get a high impact paper using public data? Thanks to Stu Murray for the question Will people steal your ideas? The journal Scientific Data Are we now incentivising data mining rather tha...

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...

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 Ef...

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...

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 pap...

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’...

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: T...

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...

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 commer...

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 public...

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-structuri...

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 co...

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:...

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 researche...

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...

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 dis...

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...

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 co...

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 betwe...

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 Jame...