Everything Hertz

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 r...

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 S...

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, bu...

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 me...

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 t...

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 t...

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 questi...

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] H...

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...

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 popul...

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...

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? W...

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 "m...

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...

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 regist...

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 heal...

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 vict...

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” an...

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 be...

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 prep...

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...

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 thresho...

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 thei...

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 la...

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...