OwlTail

Cover image of Everything Hertz
(45)

Rank #131 in Social Sciences category

Health & Fitness
Medicine
Science
Social Sciences

Everything Hertz

Updated 27 days ago

Rank #131 in Social Sciences category

Health & Fitness
Medicine
Science
Social Sciences
Read more

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)

Read more

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)

iTunes Ratings

45 Ratings
Average Ratings
43
0
2
0
0

Really enjoy!

By mattpfox - Nov 07 2018
Read more
A great podcast on science with engaing hosts and great guests.

Great podcast!

By Jacob Vines - Mar 13 2018
Read more
Super interesting, and it gets you thinking!

iTunes Ratings

45 Ratings
Average Ratings
43
0
2
0
0

Really enjoy!

By mattpfox - Nov 07 2018
Read more
A great podcast on science with engaing hosts and great guests.

Great podcast!

By Jacob Vines - Mar 13 2018
Read more
Super interesting, and it gets you thinking!

Best weekly hand curated episodes for learning

Cover image of Everything Hertz

Everything Hertz

Latest release on Jan 18, 2021

Best weekly hand curated episodes for learning

The Best Episodes Ranked Using User Listens

Updated by OwlTail 27 days ago

Rank #1: 117: How we peer-review papers

Podcast cover
Read more

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:

Other links

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

  • $1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show

- $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

Episode citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, October 5) "117: How we peer-review papers", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7JHFP

Support Everything Hertz

Oct 05 2020

1hr 4mins

Play

Rank #2: 36: Statistical inconsistencies in published research

Podcast cover
Read more

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 researchers took a closer look into. Dan and James discuss the statistical inconsistencies that the authors reported in a recent preprint.

Some of the topics covered:

  • Trump (of course)
  • A summary of the preprint
  • The GRIM test to detect inconsistencies
  • The researchers that accidently administered the equivalent of 300 cups of coffee to study participants
  • How do we prevent inconsistent reporting?
  • 21 word solution for research transparency
  • Journals mandating statistical inconsistency checks, such as 'statcheck'

Links

The pre-print
https://peerj.com/preprints/2748/

'The grad student that didn't say no' blog post
http://www.brianwansink.com/phd-advice/the-grad-student-who-never-said-no

The caffeine study
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-38744307

Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group lab handbook (see page 6 for open science practices)
http://www.bris.ac.uk/media-library/sites/expsych/documents/targ/TARG%20Handbook%20161128.pdf

21 word solution
http://spsp.org/sites/default/files/dialogue_26(2).pdf

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Twitter account
https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast

Support Everything Hertz

Jan 27 2017

50mins

Play

Similar Podcasts

The Black Goat

Two Psychologists Four Beers

Unsupervised Thinking

Brain Inspired

The Effort Report

The Bayes Factor

The Startup Scientist

Max Planck Florida’s Neurotransmissions Podcast

Casual Inference

ReproducibiliTea Podcast

Circle of Willis

Working Scientist

The Bayesian Conspiracy

Hello PhD

Quantitude

Rank #3: 67: Shit Academics Say (with Nathan Hall)

Podcast cover
Read more

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 media usage being perceived as “unprofessional”
  • The amount of free labor that academics are pressured to do
  • How alcohol is becoming an unspoken coping strategy in academia
  • Academic guilt and glamorising overwork
  • Why Nathan changed his mind about making Imposter Syndrome jokes
  • Leaving tweets in your draft folder

Links
Nein Quarterly https://twitter.com/NeinQuarterly
Shit my Dad says https://twitter.com/shitmydadsays
Cern and comic sans https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/4/3136652/cern-scientists-comic-sans-higgs-boson
Ate the onion https://www.reddit.com/r/AteTheOnion/
Shit Academics Say on twitter https://www.twitter.com/AcademicsSay
Nathan on Twitter https://www.twitter.com/prof_nch
Dan on twitter https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Nathan Hall.

Support Everything Hertz

Aug 20 2018

1hr 3mins

Play

Rank #4: 46: Statistical literacy (with Andy Field)

Podcast cover
Read more

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 first version of ‘Discovering statistics’
  • How to improve your statistical literacy
  • Does peer review improve the statistics of papers
  • Researchers will draw different conclusions on the same dataset
  • The American Statistical Association’s statement on p-values
  • How has the teaching of statistics for psychology degrees changed over the years
  • Andy fact checks his own Wikipedia page
  • Andy’s thoughts on Bayesian statistics and how he applied it in a recent paper
  • The peer review of new statistical methods
  • Andy’s future textbook plans
  • The rudeness of mailing lists/discussion forums
  • What is something academia or stats-related that Andy believes that others think is crazy?
  • The one book that Andy recommends that everyone should read
  • We learn the crossover in James and Andy’s taste in metal bands

Links

Andy’s books: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/author/andy-field-0
The ‘PENIS of statistics’ lecture from Andy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe3_DeLC2JE
Daniel Lakens’ Coursera course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences
The American Statistical Association’s statement on p-values: http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
The refereeing decision paper: https://osf.io/gvm2z/
R stan: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rstan/index.html
Statistical rethinking book: https://www.crcpress.com/Statistical-Rethinking-A-Bayesian-Course-with-Examples-in-R-and-Stan/McElreath/p/book/9781482253443

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Andy Field.

Support Everything Hertz

Jun 23 2017

1hr 19mins

Play

Most Popular Podcasts

The Joe Rogan Experience

TED Talks Daily

The Tim Ferriss Show

The Daily

Stuff You Should Know

Oprah's SuperSoul Conversations

Armchair Expert with Dax Shepard

Rank #5: 77: Promiscuous expertise

Podcast cover
Read more

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...

Other links

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

  • $1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
  • $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, February 4) "Promiscuous expertise", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VYCAH

Support Everything Hertz

Feb 04 2019

55mins

Play

Rank #6: 95: All good presentations are alike; each bad presentation is bad in its own way

Podcast cover
Read more

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 Better Poster
  • The “I want a refund for a bad presentation” blog post
  • What does James consider a ‘good’ presentation?
  • Conference apps
  • Why don’t we teach PhD students to do things that they’ll need further in their careers, like making presentations and writing emails?
  • Vague emails
  • James wants to help out an email spammer
  • Email vs. Twitter DM
  • Anonymous people on the internet
  • James discovers coin collecting
  • Blocking people on Twitter
  • Dan’s got a show recommendation: Money Heist / Paper house
  • Why do we hate spoilers?
  • Spoiling the end of a movie on Pompeii

Other links

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

  • $1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
  • $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link

Support Everything Hertz

Nov 04 2019

1hr 3mins

Play

Rank #7: 4: Meta-analysis or mega-silliness?

Podcast cover
Read more

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 mega-silliness" in 1978, to J. A. J. Heathers Ph.D., describing its use as a "profound moral failing" (he's half-serious) in 2016.

In this episode, Dan defends meta-analysis against more recent criticisms put forward by James and offers suggestions on how meta-analysis can be improved.

Links:

PRISMA statement - http://www.prisma-statement.org/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast

Support Everything Hertz

Mar 22 2016

39mins

Play

Rank #8: 40: Meta-research (with Michèle Nuijten)

Podcast cover
Read more

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 inconsistencies.

They also cover:

  • How Michèle dealt with statcheck criticisms
  • Psychological Science’s pilot of statcheck for journal submissions
  • Detecting data fraud
  • When should a journal issue a correction?
  • Future plans for statcheck
  • The one thing Michèle thinks that everyone else thinks is crazy
  • Michèle's most worthwhile career investment
  • The one paper that Michèle thinks everyone should read

Links

Special Guest: Michèle Nuijten.

Support Everything Hertz

Mar 24 2017

49mins

Play

Rank #9: 20: Sample sizes in psychology studies

Podcast cover
Read more

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 training
  • Italian coffee
  • Listener feedback
  • We're sorry for the chewing sound from episode 17!
  • Intraindividual replication vs. larger sample sizes
  • What sort of experiments are better suited to detailed within-subject studies?
  • Is 'quantified self' data more valid than experimental data?
  • What if you happen to recruit a 'weird' person?

Links

  • The paper

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4911349/

Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Twitter account

https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast

Support Everything Hertz

Jul 13 2016

1hr 1min

Play

Rank #10: 54: Cuckoo Science

Podcast cover
Read more

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 victims of sloppy science
  • Grants that fund sloppy science take resources from responsible science projects
  • If people actually posted their data and methods, James’ job would be much easier
  • Registered reports improve the quality of science
  • If James could show one slide to every introductory psychology lecture what would it say?
  • The one thing James believes that others think is crazy
  • What James has changed his mind about in the last year

Links

The Sokal hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
James’ Psychological Science paper: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797615572908
The @IamSciComm Tweetstorm on podcasting: https://twitter.com/iamscicomm/status/935851867661357057

Support Everything Hertz

Dec 15 2017

55mins

Play

Rank #11: 81: Too Young To Know, Too Old To Care

Podcast cover
Read more

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 publication of the response to the letter
  • Harassment in academia
  • Have we ever been worried that someone might say, "I'd never hire those dudes" because of what we say?
  • Other stuff that has happened to us as a result of the podcast
  • Fahrenheit vs. Celsius
  • Supply and demand for academic jobs
  • The criticism that comes with putting yourself out there

Links

Other links

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

  • $1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
  • $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, April 1) "Too Young To Know, Too Old To Care" Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/W6MER

Support Everything Hertz

Apr 01 2019

56mins

Play

Rank #12: Episode 7: 7: The writing process

Podcast cover
Read more

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.com

BreakTime app

http://breaktimeapp.com

Tomato timer

http://tomato-timer.com

Jelte Wichert's paper

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0026828

Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Twitter account

https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast

Support Everything Hertz

Apr 15 2016

49mins

Play

Rank #13: 15: Software and coding

Podcast cover
Read more

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.rstudio.com //// GraphPad - http://www.graphpad.com //// JASP - https://jasp-stats.org ////
Igor - https://www.wavemetrics.com/products/igorpro/igorpro.htm //// Canva - https://www.canva.com ////Omnifocus - https://www.omnigroup.com/omnifocus ////Slack - https://slack.com //// PsychoPy - http://www.psychopy.org //// 1Password - https://1password.com //// Papers - http://papersapp.com //// http://www.manuscriptsapp.com

Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Twitter account

https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast

Support Everything Hertz

Jun 08 2016

45mins

Play

Rank #14: 55: The proposal to redefine clinical trials

Podcast cover
Read more

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 health-related biomedical or behavioural outcomes”.

Over the course of this episode, they cover the pros and cons of this decision along with the implications for researchers and science in general.

Here are a few things they cover:

  • The traditional definition of a clinical trial
  • We go through James’ old work to determine if he’s been a clinical trialist all along
  • The lack of clarity surrounding the new definition
  • Why are adopting a clinical trial approach when this approach has obvious weaknesses?
  • What do you actually have to do when running a clinical trial?
  • Will institutions also adopt this new definition, thus putting basic research through clinical trial IRBs?
  • What if this extra red tape actually improves science?
  • One argument against the proposal is that registering more studies on clinicaltrials.gov will confuse the public. We don’t buy that.
  • Clinical trial registrations generally miss the many nuances of study design
  • The new clinical trial definition will eliminate some of the ‘forking paths’ when analysing and reporting data
  • How this new definition will affect grant applications for early career researchers?
  • What happens to exploratory research?
  • NIH case studies of what may constitute a clinical trial

Links

NIH clinical trial definition https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/definition.htm
The NIH “clinical trial decision tree” https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/CT-decision-tree.pdf
NIH case studies of what may constitute a clinical trial https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/case-studies.htm#case1

Support Everything Hertz

Jan 18 2018

59mins

Play

Rank #15: 66: Ideal worlds vs grim truths

Podcast cover
Read more

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 the internet?
  • Tips for people starting a PhD
  • Can inferential statistics play a role in exploratory research?
  • Why don’t journals publish peer review reports?
  • Why is PsycNet so bad?

Links

Dan on twitter https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Support Everything Hertz

Aug 06 2018

54mins

Play

Rank #16: 13: Academic horror stories

Podcast cover
Read more

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-1774236393

Equator network

http://www.equator-network.org

Jack Johnson (the singer, not the boxer from the turn of the century)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seZMOTGCDag

Abominable Putridity (the band James mentioned)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JYFgoaEeaQ

Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Twitter account

https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast

Support Everything Hertz

May 26 2016

52mins

Play

Rank #17: 68: Friends don’t let friends believe in impact factors (with Nathan Hall)

Podcast cover
Read more

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, but the grant process is not discussed openly—why?
  • Speaking to your funding body’s relevant program officer
  • Assembling a team that complements your weaknesses
  • Data carpentry and the tidyverse
  • Outlier analysis
  • Nathan Hall on big publishing
  • Upending the publication system by getting journals to bid for papers
  • Using peer review quality to judge the quality of journals
  • Debunking learning styes
  • Academics chasing after celebrity and hype
  • The cost of chasing academic prestige
  • Using twitter hashtags like #PhDChat and #ECRchat to learn more about the experiences of other people

Links
Data carpentry https://datacarpentry.org/
The paper with detailed code https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03811-x
The podcast conference https://www.soundeducation.fm/
Cern and comic sans https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/4/3136652/cern-scientists-comic-sans-higgs-boson
Shit Academics Say on twitter https://www.twitter.com/AcademicsSay
Nathan on Twitter https://www.twitter.com/prof_nch
Dan on twitter https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana
James on twitter https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers
Everything Hertz on twitter https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast
Everything Hertz on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Nathan Hall.

Support Everything Hertz

Sep 03 2018

1hr 14mins

Play

Rank #18: 96: The chaotic state of doctoral research

Podcast cover
Read more

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...

Other links

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

  • $1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
  • $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, November 18) "The chaotic state of doctoral research", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/CDZRA, Retrieved from https://osf.io/cdzra/

Support Everything Hertz

Nov 18 2019

47mins

Play

Rank #19: 97: Slow science

Podcast cover
Read more

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 information overload really a problem?
  • The META platform for a weekly research digest
  • Would reducing the volume of publications really improve quality?
  • The working paper that simulated the quality vs. quantity question
  • The slow professor book https://utorontopress.com/ca/the-slow-professor-3
  • Michael Frank’s paper on N-best evaluation
  • Some institutions are now screening papers before submission to check for errors

Other links

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

  • $1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
  • $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Episode citation and permanent link
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, December 2) "Slow Science", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/XEU42, Retrieved from https://osf.io/xeu42/

Support Everything Hertz

Dec 02 2019

1hr

Play

Rank #20: 44: Who’s afraid of the New Bad People? (with Nick Brown)

Podcast cover
Read more

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 nothings, scientific McCarthyites, second-stringers, whiners, the Stasi, destructo-critics, and wackaloons* — are trying to improve science

Here’s what they cover

  • Power imbalances in academia
  • Publication bias
  • Euphemisms for people who are publicly critical of science
  • How to go about questioning the scientific record
  • Peer reviewed criticism vs. blog posts
  • Making meta-analysis easier
  • Data-recycling
  • Well-being and genomics
  • Popular science books and conflicts of interest
  • The ‘typical’ response to a Letter to an Editor
  • What Dan and James do during the breaks
  • Why don’t people report descriptive statistics anymore?
  • Priming studies
  • Science in the media
  • What Nick has changed his mind about

Links
Nick on Twitter - @sTeamTraen
Nick’s blog - http://steamtraen.blogspot.no

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Nick Brown.

Support Everything Hertz

May 19 2017

1hr 8mins

Play