A podcast by scientists, for scientists. Methodology, scientific life, and bad language. Co-hosted by Dr. Dan Quintana (University of Oslo) and Dr. James Heathers (Northeastern University)... Show More
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 (https://everythinghertz.com/audio-question)
Listen to our episode with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti (https://everythinghertz.com/107)...
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 (https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-450-movement-1f86132a29bd), which proposes that scientists should be paid for performing peer re...
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.
The Twitter thread (https://twitter.com/tage_rai/status/1304985745157914624?s=20) from Tage Rai on conflicts of interest in funding on science
The Raytheon Amphitheater (http://www.northe...
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.
* James' tweet (https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/1301533455520608256?s=20) proposing peer review should be compensated
* Since recording this episode, James...
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jess_Wade)
Inferior (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/553867/inferior-by-angela-saini/), by Angela Saini
What's involved when...
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 (https://everythinghertz.com/audio-question)
How does James read so much and what tips do Dan and James have for reading...
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 (https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/i-quit-be062295f638)
Having a plan B (and plan C) in academia
Using consulting a bridge to a full-time industry job
How to get an industry jo...
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 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09hlzbb)
Chris' email signature
Having a code of conduct for your lab
Work/life balance in academia
Are things ...
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 (https://twitter.com/academicswrite).
Submit your audio questions via our website (https://everythinghertz.com/audio-question)
Nick Brown's blogpost (http://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2020/04/some-i...
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 (https://openpublishingfest.org/)
We collected data LIVE thanks to Prolific! Go to prolific.co/everything...
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 (https://psyarxiv.com/whds4/)" preprint
The Twitter thread (https://twitter.com/rickcarlsson/status/1260661034580242432?s=21) from Rickard Carlsson
There is a cont...
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 (https://tiktok.com/@chelseaparlettpelleriti)
Chelsea's Instagram profile (https://instagram.com/chelseaparlett/)
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 (https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/sarscov2-virus-able-to-survive-i...
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 tasks of an editor
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 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...
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://honisoit.com/2020/02/usu-shutters-manning-bar/) because all the youth are playing Fortnite and on TikTok
How should you respond to rejection?
The rejected paper (https://twitter.com/salarrad/status/1231610843059642368?s=20) on fasting dur...
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 (https://biorender.com/), Canva (https://www.canva.com/), Slack (https://slack.com/), 99designs (https://99designs.com/), and Notion (https://w...
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Bik)
Elizabeth’s Patreon page (https://www.patreon.com/elisabethbik)
The original co...
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 create cross-discipline effect siz...
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 (https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/1199676892460261376?s=20)
The Tom Bartlett story in the Chronicle (https://www.chronicle.com/intera...