Open access articles have democratized the availability of scientific research, but are author-paid publication fees undermining the quality of science? The preprint by Morgan and Smaldino - https://osf.io/preprints/osf/3ez9v Paul Smaldino's text book - Modeling social behavior (https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691224145/modeling-social-behavior) Main edisode takeaways (AI-assisted summary) There is a wide variability in the quality of papers published in gold open access journals and a wide variate of open access journals, some of which prioritise quality research Diamond open access and green open access are alternative models to consider. The publishing industry needs more transparency and mandatory reporting of data. The pressure to publish more can lead to a crowding out problem and a focus on quantity over quality. Determining the quality of journals and papers is challenging, and there are varying levels of quality within different tiers of journals. Fraudulent publishing practices, such as paper mills and fake papers, can be facilitated by the market for publishing. The Publons service (R.I.P) and similar platforms can improve the transparency of peer review and provide a record of reviewers' contributions. Society journals may offer a better publishing model as they have a reputation to maintain and are less likely to prioritize quantity over quality. Other links Everything Hertz on social media - 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/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Citation Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Sept 5). 184: A race to the bottom, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3MUJV

Dan and James discuss a paper describing a journal editor's efforts to receive data from authors who submitted papers with results that seemed a little too beautiful to be true Main edisode takeaways (AI generated summary) * This editorial on the reproducibility crisis emphasizes the importance of providing raw data in scientific publications and highlights the need for transparency and accountability in the research process * The lack of oversight and the discrepancy between the amount of data required for scientific statements and what is often provided in academic publishing is a cause for concern. * Ensuring the integrity of scientific research requires the active involvement of editors, reviewers, and researchers in promoting transparency and upholding ethical standards. The scientific publishing process lacks oversight and accountability, leading to potential issues with the accuracy and trustworthiness of published papers. * Journals should prioritize maintaining high standards and ensuring that papers are thoroughly reviewed and validated before publication. * Changing behaviors within the scientific community, such as pledging to publish in open access journals, can promote positive change and improve research integrity. * There is a need for active maintenance and improvement of the systems and parameters of scientific research to prevent potential negative consequences. Links for papers we mentioned * The Molecular Brain editorial by Miyakawa: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2 * The STALT preprint: https://osf.io/6hste Other links Everything Hertz on social media - 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/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Citation Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Aug 3). 183: Too beautiful to be true Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JF5MS

James proposes proposes a new type of consortium paper that could provide collaborative opportunities for researchers from countries that are underrepresented in published research papers. We also talk about computational reproducibility and paper publication bonuses. Links The paper from Steve Lindsay on computational reproducbility: A Plea to Psychology Professional Societies that Publish Journals: Assess Computational Reproducibility (https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2023.4020) Other links Everything Hertz on social media - 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/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Citation Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, October 31) "174: Smug missionaries with test tubes", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/FBHRZ

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: * The tweet (https://twitter.com/_vdeni_/status/1126485212337143808) pointing our Dan's gramatical error in his usual introduction. THANKS DENIS * Is Twitter melting our brains? * The history of "new technology" panic * What's the next panic? * Moral entrepreneurs: profiting from moral panic * Specification curve analysis (https://socialsciences.nature.com/users/200472-amy-orben/posts/42763-beyond-cherry-picking): a way to run all theoretically defensible analysis options on a given dataset * Amy's Nature Human Behavior paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0506-1) * Amy's PNAS paper (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1902058116) * The longitudincal effect of social media use on life satisfaction * How should scientists speak out against dodgy science? * The story behind Reproducabilitea * The ReproducibiliTea podcast (https://soundcloud.com/reproducibilitea) * ReproducibiliTea stickers (https://twitter.com/OrbenAmy/status/1125712657334571008)! * The UK Reproducibility network (https://www.bristol.ac.uk/psychology/research/ukrn/about/) * Daniel Lakens' Coursera course (https://www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences) * A multiverse of multiverses (https://osf.io/9qke2/) * Press releasing every paper might not be the best idea * Amy's book recommendation: The long way to a small angry planet (https://www.amazon.com/Long-Small-Angry-Planet-Wayfarers/dp/0062444131 https://www.amazon.com/Long-Small-Angry-Planet-Wayfarers/dp/0062444131) Other links - Amy on Twitter (https://twitter.com/OrbenAmy) - Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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, May 21) "A GPS in the Garden of Forking Paths (with Amy Orben)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/38KPE (https://osf.io/38kpe/) Special Guest: Amy Orben.

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 (https://everythinghertz.com/80) on this platform * Our dreams of a live Hertz episode * Is Fortnite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortnite) killing our youth and the parallels with the “heavy metal” scare * Amy Orben’s screen time study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0506-1) * Multiverse analysis * Book recommendations: Kevin Mitchell’s "Innate" (https://www.amazon.com/Innate-How-Wiring-Brains-Shapes/dp/0691173885), Gareth Leng's "Heart of the brain" (https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/heart-brain) * Daryl dug a hole reference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDl1i3mpKwM), from the Aussie classic, "The Castle" * A new null oxytocin paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453019300800) and the twitter response, and Dan's response (https://twitter.com/dsquintana/status/1122962998069485573?s=20) * The SANS meeting venue (https://twitter.com/dsquintana/status/1124386664758095877?s=20) * QR codes on posters * The slides to Dan’s oxytocin talk (https://osf.io/q7a4w/) at SANS * The Hertz Hype Cycle * Dan recollects one of the first conversations he had with James Other links - Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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, May 8) "Back to our dirty unwashed roots", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/N9BGX (https://osf.io/n9bgx/)

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 (https://everythinghertz.com/contact)! * Considering the potential downsides of open science * Here come dat boi meme explination (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dat-boi) * The dangers of open access by fiat * The role of commercial entities in open science * The “University of Oslo fancy Norway people-pay-taxes oil money bloody library (https://www.ub.uio.no/english/)” * Dropping the success rate of grants to increase the quality of evaluation * Reframing open science reform efforts to a mission of equity and fairness * We don’t know the process behind university sexual harassment/misconduct investigations * Does transparency even matter if people won’t follow up on problems? * James' prediction: If someone starts a journal that ONLY does Registered Report, this will be very successful * The milkshake duck tweet (https://twitter.com/pixelatedboat/status/741904787361300481) and an explanation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkshake_Duck) * Paul Roos and his “no dickheads” policy (https://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2011-12-16/the-swan-way) * Linking DOIs * We can't let edge case scenarios, which may not even play out, hobble progress Other links - Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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 15) "More janitors and fewer architects" Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7ZR9J (https://osf.io/7zr9j/)

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 - @ReproRocks (https://twitter.com/ReproRocks): for those working in reproduction to share their work through twitter - The Steven Pinker book - The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010) - Twitter thread (https://twitter.com/drderringer/status/1110593951105540096?s=20) from @drderringer - Me too Stem blog (https://metoostem.com/) - Gideon on Twitter: @GidMK (https://twitter.com/GidMK) Other links - Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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 (https://osf.io/345dk/)

We chat with Sean Rife, who the co-founder of scite.ai (https://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 (https://thewinnower.com) * Why is there no good (and free) plagiarism detector? * Grobid (https://grobid.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Introduction/) - A machine learning library for extracting, parsing and re-structuring PDFs * Meta-analysis can prop up flawed bodies of literature * The "Too meta (https://xkcd.com/1447/)" XKCD cartoon * What’s the end game for scite? * The 80,000 hours game (https://80000hours.org/articles/can-you-guess/) * Spooner (http://spooner.lyceum.ws), a utility that allows authors of scientific publications to make their work available to the general public (probably) without violating publishing agreements Other links - Sean on twitter (www.twitter.com/seanrife) - Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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, March 18) "Cites are not endorsements", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/Q9EYG (https://osf.io/q9eyg/) Special Guest: Sean Rife.

We chat with Henry Drysdale (University of Oxford), co-founder of the COMPare trials project (http://compare-trials.org), 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 (https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-019-3173-2) correcting and monitoring 58 misreported trials and a qualitative analysis (https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-019-3172-3) of researchers’ responses to critical correspondence Ben Goldacre's books (https://www.amazon.co.uk/l/B002C1VRBQ?_encoding=UTF8&redirectedFromKindleDbs=true&rfkd=1&shoppingPortalEnabled=true) What is outcome switching? What were some of the responses to query letters from the authors and journals? Misreporting trials (usually) doesn't lead to patient harm, but it harms the evidence base Where should the buck stop with outcome switching? Would Registered Reports solve this problem? The CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org) Have the journals changed their practices? COMPare on twitter (https://twitter.com/compare_trials) The COMPare website (http://compare-trials.org) Here is Henry on Twitter - @HenryMDrysdale (https://twitter.com/HenryMDrysdale) Here is Ben Goldacre on Twitter - @bengoldacre (https://twitter.com/bengoldacre) Other links - Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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, March 4) "Clinical trial reporting (with Henry Drysdale)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/HBX8R (https://osf.io/hbx8r/) Special Guest: Henry Drysdale.

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 (https://twitter.com/deborahapthorp/status/1092599860212068352), "because that's what students know" People who are involved with teaching R for psychology at the University of Glasgow: @Eavanmac @dalejbarr @McAleerP @clelandwoods @PatersonHelena @emilynordmann Why the #psyTeachR started teaching R for reproducible science Data wrangling vs. statistical analysis The psyTeachR website (https://psyteachr.github.io) Danielle Navarro (https://djnavarro.net), and her R text book (https://learningstatisticswithr.com) that you should read Lisa's "faux" package (https://github.com/debruine/faux) for data simulation Sometimes you can't share data, simulations are a good way around this problem "synthpop" is the name of the package (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/synthpop/vignettes/synthpop.pdf) that Dan mentioned that can simulate census data Power analysis can be hard once you go beyond the more conventional statistical tests (e.g., t-tests, ANOVAs etc...) Lisa's OSF page (https://osf.io/4i578/) Dirty code is always better than no code (but the cleaner the better) Live coding is terrifying but a useful teaching tool. Here's Dan live coding how to build a website in R (https://twitter.com/dsquintana/status/1070392412445401088), typos and all Using a Slack group for help The psychological science accelerator (https://psysciacc.org) Chris Chartier (Psych Science Accelerator Director) on Twitter (https://twitter.com/CRChartier) A few of the other (hundreds) of folks involved with the Psych Science Accelerator Director: @PsySciAcc: @CRChartier @BenCJ @JkayFlake @hmoshontz Lisa's Registered Report project (https://osf.io/f7v3n/) on face rating The challenges associated with collaborating with 100+ labs Authorship order Author contributions: CRediT taxonomy (http://dev.biologists.org/content/author-contributions) The DARPA-funding project (https://www.wired.com/story/darpa-wants-to-solve-sciences-replication-crisis-with-robots/) on using AI to determine reproducibility Interacting Minds workshop (http://interactingminds.au.dk/events/single-events/artikel/2-day-workshop-open-science-and-reproducibility/) in Denmark in March on open science and reproducibility Lisa shares what Glasgow is like Lisa has changed her mind about the importance of research metrics (h-index, impact factors etc...) Lisa thinks you should read this paper (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2515245918770963) on equivalence testing, which includes two former guests, Daniel Lakens (https://everythinghertz.com/guests/daniel-lakens), Anne Scheel (https://everythinghertz.com/guests/anne-scheel), and friend of the show Peder Isager. Here's the latest episode (https://anchor.fm/psychsococlock/episodes/Making-and-breaking-habits---Psych-Soc-OClock---Episode-4-e3327v) from Psych Soc O'Clock Other links - Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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 first 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 18) "Large-scale collaborative science (with Lisa DeBruine)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/JDT6F (https://osf.io/jdt6f/) Special Guest: Lisa DeBruine.

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 (https://osf.io/zj7y3/) James did a talk at the Sound Education conference on podcasting for early career researchers. Here's the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26t6660_f-A) if you want to see him squirm uncomfortably in his chair for 20 minutes and/or hear his thoughts our approach to podcasting The temptation for academics to believe their own press and to have their thoughts reinforced by the praise they get Keeping a handle on what you know and don't know Nassim Nicholas Taleb (https://twitter.com/nntaleb) has FANS The "Pete Evans" effect, James' solution, that we should eat Pete Evans (https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/i-think-i-have-a-solution-i-m-going-to-eat-pete-evans-7e2da6f3967f), pesca-pescaterianism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC-ZBJ-Kw2E), and the spectacularly bad advice that we should stare into the sun (https://www.sciencealert.com/please-don-t-stare-at-the-sun-even-if-pete-evans-says-it-s-good-for-you) You should follow gynecologist Jennifer Gunter on Twitter (https://twitter.com/DrJenGunter) How much money would you pay for 100,000 engaged twitter followers? Here's the tweet (https://twitter.com/ImHardcory/status/1090213113352372224) James was referring to Should researchers have something like a Hippocratic Oath (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath)? How would we police this? Researchers are not good at admitting they're wrong, do we need to approach retractions differently? Would a bounty system, in which journals offer rewards, for finding errors in their papers, work well? The "Loss of confidence (https://lossofconfidence.com)" project, and Rebecca Willen's CV (https://rmwillen.info/publications/) The "Nobel disease" (http://skepdic.com/nobeldisease.html) Other links - Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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 (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VYCAH)

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 keepers gonna gate keep, but is this better out in the open? Weaponising openness Some people don't realise that some data can’t be shared Should the reviewers of rejected papers follow them to the next journal? When bad papers that you reject pop up in another journal, unchanged Does the venue and timing of the open peer review matter? Signing your reviews Using publons to track your reviews Links - Brad Love’s blog post: http://bradlove.org/blog/open-review - Niko’s blog post: https://nikokriegeskorte.org/2019/01/09/whats-the-best-measure-of-representational-dissimilarity/ - Publons: https://publons.com - 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 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)

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 discuss the unique overlay model, how this can drive article fees to essentially zero, and what it takes to build a good community journal. Here’s what we cover: Why launch a new neuroscience journal and how is it different from currently established journals? The unique way that editor’s decide which papers to send out for review How does the journal operate when it’s open access and submissions only cost $10? How do you build a journal that your target community will recognise as a ‘good’ journal? The process of submitting a manuscript to NBDT Should journals allow or encourage authors to suggest potential reviewers for their papers? Using Twitter to find reviewers based on who’s ‘liked’ the preprint Is posting a preprint on twitter actually useful? What can neuroscience learn from the field of physics? Authorship attribution How can a journal better champion early career researchers? Links... NBDT journal: https://nbdt.scholasticahq.com Danielle on twitter: https://twitter.com/dan_marinazzo 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 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) Special Guest: Daniele Marinazzo.

Dan and James discuss a recent paper that investigated how science journalists evaluate psychology papers. To answer this question, the researchers presented science journalists with fictitious psychology studies and manipulated sample size, sample representativeness, p-values, and institutional prestige Links * The paper (https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231183912) on how science journalists evaluate psychology papers * The preprint paper (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.19.558509v1) on small samples * Laboratory Life (https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691028323/laboratory-life) by Bruno Latour Other links Everything Hertz on social media - 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/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Citation Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, September 30) "173: How do science journalists evaluate psychology papers?", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/SG4BM

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 papers with problematic images The association between journal prestige and problematic images Providing monetary incentives for publications Making the jump from academia to industry The current state of microbiome research Links - Patreon: www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast - Elisabeth on Twitter:  www.twitter.com/microbiomdigest - Elisabeth online: https://microbiomedigest.com - The problematic image paper: https://mbio.asm.org/content/7/3/e00809-16.short - Pubpeer: https://pubpeer.com - Dan on twitter: www.twitter.com/dsquintana - James on twitter: www.twitter.com/jamesheathers - Everything Hertz on twitter: www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast - Everything Hertz on Facebook: www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/ 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) Special Guest: Elisabeth Bik.

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 courses too big these days? - Should students be taught how to set up a side hustle to apply their research skills outside of academia? Links - Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast - CRISPR baby story: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/30/18119589/crispr-technology-he-jiankui - 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 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)

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 between a vaccine batch and narcolepsy in Norway - Can you “claim” our anonymous article a few years into the future? - What’s the difference between anonymous blogging and anonymous journal articles? - The new Neurons, Behavior, Data analysis and Theory journal Links - Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast - Narcolepsy paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389945713001548 - Journal of Controversial ideas story: https://www.bbc.com/news/education-46146766 - PsyBrief twitter account: twitter.com/psybrief - NBDT journal: nbdt.scholasticahq.com - 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 us on Patreon and get bonus stuff! - $1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + the warm feeling you're supporting the show - $5 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + bonus audio (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

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 James moved overseas from Australia - Do you really need to move overseas to demonstrate independence? - The two-body problem - Can you demonstrate independence with sole-author papers? Links SFN social media policy https://twitter.com/fedeadolfi/status/1058760331747581953 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/

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 research community has been met. Here's an overview of the episode: - It’s fat bear week! - The new proposal to fix the stranglehold of commercial publishers in academia - Flipping journals to open access - The ‘grievance studies’ hoax - When James first came across the “dog rape” paper - What if you were to design the dog study properly? - Should we systematically try and hoax journals? - Astronomy already injects fake data, can we learn from this? - Should these new hoaxes all be associated with Sokal? Links - Brian Resnick’s fat bear week story: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/10/9/17955432/fat-bear-week-katmai-national-park-409-747-salmon - https://freeourknowledge.org - Paywall the movie: https://paywallthemovie.com - The ‘grievance studies’ hoax: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ - James’ thread on the “dog-rape” study: https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/1048313273563668486 - The proposal for systematic hoaxing: https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1047507838493499392 - A tweet from one of the reviewers of the dog paper: https://twitter.com/dwschieber/status/1047497301021798400 - Fake (a.k.a. blind) injection in astronomy: https://www.ligo.org/news/blind-injection - The original Sokal paper: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgressv2/transgressv2_singlefile.html - 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/

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 Science? - How did Brian go from Psychology professor to the director of tech organisation? - How can researchers use the Open Science Framework (OSF)? - How does OSF remove friction for conducting open science? - Registered reports (now available at 131 journals!) - What factors converged to cause the emerging acceptance of open science? - The social sciences replication project - Can researchers anticipate which findings can replicate? - What happened when Brian and his team tried to submit their replication attempts of Science papers to Science? - The experience of reviewing registered reports Links: Centre for open science https://cos.io Open Science Framework https://osf.io Project Implicit https://www.projectimplicit.net/index.html The social sciences replication project paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0399-z Brian on Twitter https://www.twitter.com/briannosek 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: Brian Nosek.

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.

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.

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 James’ paper https://peerj.com/articles/5292/ Physiology and Behavior podcast from Dan https://shows.pippa.io/dsquintana The tweet we discuss https://twitter.com/andpru/status/1024005699737509888?s=21 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/

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 to biological signals and genetics data? What’s something that Jon’s changed him mind about in regards to academia? Links Frankl https://frankl.io Five reasons Frankl has a token https://medium.com/franklopenscience/why-does-frankl-need-a-frankl-token-4129d718ab74 Bjoern Brembs blog post http://bjoern.brembs.net/2018/05/after-24-years-when-will-academic-culture-finally-shift/ An explainer on cryptographic hashes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographichashfunction#Illustration Frankl in a nutshell https://medium.com/franklopenscience/frankl-in-a-nutshell-9b488c554dea Frankl for autism https://medium.com/franklopenscience/frankl-for-autism-e74f0108bf5a Rethinking Innateness https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/rethinking-innateness Jon on Twitter twitter.com/DrBrocktagon Dan on Twitter twitter.com/dsquintana James on Twitter twitter.com/jamesheathers Everything Hertz on Twitter twitter.com/hertzpodcast Everything Hertz on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Jon Brock.

Dan and James discuss a recent proposal to do away with discussion sections and suggest other stuff they'd like to get rid of from academic publishing. Links * The paper (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04267-3) on the proposed elimiation of the discussion section * The paper (https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920970949) on machine readable hypothesis tests * Our episodes (https://everythinghertz.com/guests/daniel-lakens) with Daniel Lakens * Our episode (https://everythinghertz.com/78) with Lisa DeBruine Everything Hertz on social media - 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/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Citation Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, August 31) "172: In defence of the discussion section", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/N3SFT

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 question on Salami slicing [28:45] Can you publish too much? [48:10] Links - SIPS conference: https://www.improvingpsych.org/SIPS2018/ - Reproducibilitea podcast: https://soundcloud.com/reproducibilitea - Salami slicing tweet: https://twitter.com/academicswrite/status/1008719899940786176 - Cumulative impact factors: http://khakhalin.blogspot.com/2012/11/cumulative-impact-factor-benchmarking.html - A working document from SIPS on making replications discoverable (including Google scholar) https://osf.io/57zxa/ Find us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast www.twitter.com/dsquintana www.twitter.com/jamesheathers Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

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] How does Brian appraise the quality of research? [29:50] Should psychiatrists (or journalists) diagnose the US President? [32:50] Stories in science that no one knows the answer to [36:58] How to promote your research without going via your institution’s media department [40:24] The best way to pitch your research to a science journalist [44:25] How pre-preprints are great for research addressing current events [48:45] How scientists can improve their science communication writing [53:15] Dick jokes in science writing — yes or no? [54:30] What has Brian changed his mind about? [56:37] Brian’s book recommendation [58:05] Links: Brian’s pieces at Vox - https://www.vox.com/authors/brian-resnick The twitter poll that Dan was referring to - https://twitter.com/kylejasmin/status/960065733551181824?lang=en The Weeds podcast episode on the Goldwater rule - https://art19.com/shows/the-weeds/episodes/72d4c65f-2d2a-4925-8bb6-7d6ca93cb561 Brian’s email - Brian@vox.com Brian on Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/b_resnick Books mentioned: We have no idea - https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-No-Idea-Universe/dp/0735211515 Does it fart? - https://www.amazon.com/Does-Fart-Definitive-Animal-Flatulence/dp/0316484156/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 Find us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Brian Resnick.

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 What happens when a senior researcher is using questionable research practices? What to do when you’re caught doing something wrong Detecting errors in other papers The potential for open data to be weaponised How error detection is interpersonally difficult Carving out time for non-work pursuits The benefits of writing fiction when you're a scientist Using video for science communication James Heathers: Cat dealer Promoting your research vs. promoting yourself Dorothy’s book recommendation Links Dan Gilbert’s paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1037.2 Merchants of doubt [book]: https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942 Dorothy's blog: deevybee.blogspot.com Dorothy's crime novels: https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=dpbylinesrebooks1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Deevy+Bishop&search-alias=digital-text&text=Deevy+Bishop&sort=relevancerank Dorothy on Twitter: twitter.com/deevybee Find us on Twitter twitter.com/hertzpodcast twitter.com/dsquintana twitter.com/jamesheathers Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Dorothy Bishop.

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 popular misconceptions in research Are questionable research practices as bad in sports science as they are in psychology? Being an “academic outsider” can be tough, but it has some advantages The work that goes into exercise physiology studies How practical are multilab research projects in sports science? Exercise “experts” on Instagram Using Instagram to disseminate research Greg’s go-to resources for learning about open science What Greg’s changed his mind about How Greg’s planning on funding his future research without grants Links Scihub - whereisscihub.now.sh Greg on Twitter - twitter.com/GregNuckols Greg's website and newsletter - https://www.strongerbyscience.com Stronger by Science on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/strongerbyscience/ Chris Beardsly on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/chrisabeardsley/ Data colada - http://datacolada.org Slatestar codex - http://slatestarcodex.com Jordan Anaya's blog - https://medium.com/@OmnesRes SportRXiv - http://sportrxiv.org Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Greg Nuckols.

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 back catalogue The amount of reading do you need to do to keep track of the field you work in PhD students need time to make time to read the literature People sending out half-arsed work hoping that peer-review will “fix it” Guest authorship When you’re a native English speaker and get asked to have your manuscript proofed by a native English speaker Is it a conflict of interest to a review a paper with that includes someone you’ve co-authored with in the past on a different topic? The Frontiers journal model Reviewing papers so that authors are actually grateful for your criticism Links Nuzzle: http://nuzzel.com Pocket: https://getpocket.com Mendeley: http://mendeley.com Find us on Twitter: twitter.com/hertzpodcast twitter.com/dsquintana twitter.com/jamesheathers Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

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? What’s new about this journal? How does the journal have no subscription fees and no article processing fees? How does a new journal increase its profile? The difficulties in publishing negative results The limits of study pre-registration Are data archiving requirements unrealistic? Open polices and the Swedish constitution How can we make data anonymous? What’s the hardest thing about starting a journal? What would success look like for this new journal? What has Rickard changed his mind about recently? What’s one book or paper that Rickard thinks everyone should read Links The Daniel Lakens blog post on JPSP (The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) http://daniellakens.blogspot.no/2018/03/the-journal-of-personality-and-social.html Statistical rethinking book http://xcelab.net/rm/statistical-rethinking/ Psych methods Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/853552931365745/ Twitter handles Everything Hertz - @hertzpodcast Rickard - @RickCarlsson Dan - @dsquintana James - @JamesHeathers Music credits - Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Rickard Carlsson.

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 "methodologist terrorist" researcher Why podcast when you could blog or tweet? Dan and James’ favourite things about podcasting The current role of blogs Navigating the public/private crossover of science communication How much do we censor our podcasts? Should Journal editors tweet and podcast in a personal capacity? Should early career researchers podcast? The costs of not speaking above your station What equipment does we use to record podcasts? Two vs. three podcast hosts? How do you know when you have a good podcast? What type of person is suited to podcasting? What book does Simine think everyone should read? What’s something Simine’s changed her mind about recently? Links Ed Vul Social neuroscience paper https://gate.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/wiki/whynhow/images/e/ef/Vuletalorigpaper.pdf Snowball ice microphone https://www.bluedesigns.com/products/snowball/ Black Goat podcast http://www.theblackgoatpodcast.com James’ advice for PhDs https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/12-thing-you-should-know-before-you-start-a-phd-9c064a979e8 Understanding Psychology as a Science https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/Understanding-Psychology-as-a-Science/?K=9780230542303 What is this thing called science? https://www.amazon.com/What-This-Thing-Called-Science/dp/162466038X/ref=dpobtitle_bk Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Simine Vazire.

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 for the better for current research - but what about their past research? The 21 word solution Using disclosure statements in your pHD The state of research openness in forensic psychology The flexibility in determining a primary outcome How and why Rebecca founded the IGDORE research institute The drawbacks to starting your own research institute Rebecca’s recommendation for getting started with open science The story behind the RONIN institute Links - IGDORE https://igdore.org Rebecca’s website https://rmwillen.info 21 word solution https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2160588 PNAS article questioning whether there’s a reporducability crisis http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/08/1708272114 IGDORE Open Science meetup https://igdore.org/open-science-meetup-bali-2018/ IGDORE affiliation https://igdore.org/affiliation/ RONIN institute http://ronininstitute.org XKCD theme for R http://xkcd.r-forge.r-project.org GNU manifesto https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html Twitter: @hertzpodcast, @dsquintana, @jamesheathers, and @rmwillen Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Rebecca Willén.

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 registered reports for early career researchers [15:47] The generational divide for embracing methodological reforms [19:13] The launch of registered reports in 2013 [23:30] The “tone debate” in psychology [24:50] Dealing with publishing decisions as an early career researcher [27:30] Using registered reports to disarm your research rivals [30:52] A peek behind the curtain of peer-review [34:40] How do we convince journals to take up the registered report format? [36:28] Using registered reports for meta-analysis [38:40] What’s something that Chris has changed his mind about recently? [43:14] What’s Chris’ favourite failure? [48:23] Chris’ opinion of Wales [51:49] Links The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Deadly-Sins-Psychology-Scientific/dp/0691158908 Chris Chambers on Twitter @chrisdc77 Dorothy Bishop’s blog on how registered reports provides better control of the publication timeline http://deevybee.blogspot.no/2016/03/better-control-of-publication-time-line.html The Startup Scientist podcast https://shows.pippa.io/startupscientist Startup scientist on Twitter @Startup_sci The open science pyramid (slide 8) https://osf.io/yq59d/ The Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology “power posing” issue http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rrsp20/2/1?nav=tocList Dan on Twitter @dsquintana James on Twitter @JamesHeathers Music credits Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Chris Chambers.

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

We chat with Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris about the science of cons and how we can we can avoid being taken in. We also cover the fate of the gorilla suit from the 'invisible gorilla' study, why scientists are especially prone to being fooled, plus more! Buy Daniel and Christopher's new book, Nobody's fool, from your favourite bookseller here (https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/daniel-simons/nobodys-fool/9781541602236/). Other links Everything Hertz on social media - 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/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Citation Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, July 20) "171: The easiest person to fool is yourself (with Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/F8SMR Special Guests: Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons.

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

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” and “science media” Who’s going to pay for all science communicators that we’ll need to communicate everyone’s science? Dan and James mispronounce Dutch and German names and give a formal apology to the nation of The Netherlands Outcome switching in clinical trials Does having skin in the game guarantee expertise, or just wild biases? James’ recent desk rejection from a Journal Editor Dan’s method to invite manuscript reviewers as an Associate Editor Links: The science communication Twitter thread https://twitter.com/ocaptmycapt/status/927193779693645825 ERC comics https://www.erccomics.com The “skin in the game” tweet https://twitter.com/paperbag1/status/914923706648055813 That study in neuopsychopharmacology on a IL-6 receptor antibody to treat residual symptoms in schizophrenia https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2017258

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 better? Two pre-registered studies at .05 or one unregistered study at .005? Testing at the start of semester vs. the end of semester Thinking of controlling for Type 1 errors as driving speed limits Error rates mean different things between fields What if we applied the “5 Sigma” threshold used in physics to the biobehavioral sciences? What about abandoning statistical significance How did Daniel co-ordinate a paper with 88 co-authors? Using time zones to your benefit when collaborating How can junior researchers contribute to these types of discussions? Science by discussion, not manifesto The dangers of blanket recommendations How do you actually justify your alpha from scratch? Links Daniel on Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/lakens Daniel’s courser course - https://www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences Justify your alpha paper - https://psyarxiv.com/9s3y6 Abandon statistical significance - https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.07588 Using the costs of error rates to set your alpha - https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00625.x Special Guest: Daniel Lakens.

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 preprint servers vs. broad servers? How well do you need to format your preprint? How do you bring up preprints to lab heads and PIs? An example of a good preprint experience from Dan Using preprints for your grant applications What Jessica has changed her mind about The one article that Jessica thinks everyone should read Links Jessica's Twitter account - @jessicapolka ASAPbio - http://asapbio.org & @asapbio_ Rescuing Biomedical science conference 2014 resources - http://rescuingbiomedicalresearch.org/events/ Sherpa/Romeo - http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php PaleoArxiv - https://osf.io/preprints/paleorxiv Principles for Open Scholarly Infrastructures paper - https://figshare.com/articles/PrinciplesforOpenScholarlyInfrastructures_v1/1314859 Special Guest: Jessica Polka.

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 for why grad students shouldn’t publish Gatekeepers controlling what’s being published Editors that Google authors before sending papers out for review Judging researchers on their institution’s location James on networking How do you challenge reviewers when they say you are "too junior" The standards of Frontiers papers Writing review papers for the wrong reasons Why are there so many meta-analyses? Pre-registering your meta-analysis Registered reports vs. pre-registration What’s expected of today’s postdocs How many papers should you peer review? How James tried to ward off review requests Things that millennials are ruining The role of humour in the tone debate Links Episode video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj3WsTiUuLo&t=3s The “should grad students publish" article: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/23/renewed-debate-over-whether-graduate-students-should-publish#.WaGAeN_v8jI.link Prospero meta-analysis registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ Eiko Fried’s tweet on postdoc expectations: https://twitter.com/eikofried/status/902470702892290048 James’ publons profile: https://publons.com/author/1171358/james-aj-heathers#profile JANE: http://jane.biosemantics.org Anonymous PubPeer comments: https://pubpeer.com/publications/0E0DAEBEC6183646F18F4FAED03B1A#7

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 threshold unfairly favour “super” labs? If we keep shifting the number does any threshold really matter? Dan and James’ first impressions of the paper A crash course on Mediterranean taxation systems What would a 0.005 threshold practically mean for researchers? Links The paper https://osf.io/mky9j/ ENIGMA consortium http://enigma.ini.usc.edu Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

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 their practices (not publishers) PeerJ’s membership model Glamour journals Future plans for PeerJ Predatory journals Researchers don’t want cheap journals, only impact factors Links - PeerJ: https://peerj.com - The Phoenix project: https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business-ebook/dp/B00AZRBLHO - The Goal: https://www.amazon.com/Goal-Process-Ongoing-Improvement-ebook/dp/B002LHRM2O/ref=pdsim3512?encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=EMTE1M9W2XW5Q24X4GE8 Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Jason Hoyt.

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 later - Is it worth if for early career researchers to push open science practices? - How to begin with implementing open science practices - Power analysis should be normal practice, it shouldn’t be controversial - Anne’s going to start a podcast - The 100%CI: A long copy blog with 4 writers - The benefits of preprints and blogging - Science communication in English for non-native English speakers - Doing stuff that interests you vs. stuff that’s meant to advance your career Twitter accounts of people/things we mentioned: @dalejbarr - 2:10 @siminevazire - 2:45 @lakens - 2:45 @nicebread303 (Felix Schönbrodt)- 3:50 @annaveer - 21:40 @methodpodcast - 29:20 @the100ci - 30:40 @realscientists - 31:40 @upulie - 31:55 @fMRIguy (Jens Foell) - 32:20 @realsciDE (Real scientists Germany) - 32:30 @maltoesermalte, @rca, @dingdingpeng (100% CI team) - 33:55 @stuartJRitchie - 65:05 Links - Early Career Researchers and publishing practices: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1102/full (paywalled) - Pre-registration in social psychology—A discussion and suggested template” Paywalled link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103116301925, Preprint link: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/4frms/ - The CI 100%: http://www.the100.ci Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Anne Scheel.

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.

It’s conference season so in this episode Dan and James discuss the ins and outs of scientific conferences. Here’s what they cover: Research parasite award How much do you save when you don’t run an fMRI study They come up with an even better name than “Research parasite” Could the GOP weaponise the open science movement? Conspiracy theories Attempts to slow down science by taking science out of context The Black Goat Podcast The conference backchannel Contacting people at conferences Sitting though seminars (and not falling asleep) Twitter conferences Good presentations vs. bad presentations Starting collaborations at conferences Do conference locations matter? Periscoping conference presentations Links The research parasite award: http://researchparasite.com The GOP and science reform https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/04/reproducibility-science-open-judoflip/521952/ The Crackpot index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html The Brain Twitter conference https://brain.tc Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

We discuss evidence of data tampering in a series of experiments investigating dishonesty revealed via excel spreadsheet metadata and how traditional peer review is not suited for the detection of data tampering. Links Data colada post 1 (https://datacolada.org/109) The conceptual replication attempt (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/7/2/28) in Guatemalan taxpayers The paper (https://rdcu.be/dfdS8) on using caution when applying behavioural science to policy Data colada post 2 (https://datacolada.org/110) The carthorse child (https://hackernoon.com/introducing-sprite-and-the-case-of-the-carthorse-child-58683c2bfeb#.o9um9unoj) Other links Everything Hertz on social media - 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/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Citation Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, June 23) "170: Holy Sheet", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/DW2C7

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 * This list is from one of James’ blog posts https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/meet-the-new-bad-people-4922137949a1 Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Nick Brown.

Daniel Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology) joins James and Dan to talk meta-analysis. Here’s what they cover: Daniel’s opinion on the current state of meta-analysis The benefit of reporting guidelines (even though hardly anyone actually follows them) How fixing publication bias can fix science Meta-analysis before and after that Bem paper How to correct for publication bias Whether meta-analyses are just published for the citations The benefits of pre-registering meta-analysis How we get people to share their data How sharing data doesn’t just benefit others - it also helps you replicate your own analyses later Success is tied to funding, no matter how “cheap” your research is How people can say “yes” to cumulative science, but “no” to sharing data Responding to mistakes How to find errors in your own papers before submission We ask Daniel: i) If he could should one slide to every introductory psychology lecture in the world, what would say?, ii) What has he changed his mind about in the last few years?, iii) The one book/paper he thinks everyone should read Daniel also gives James and Dan ideas for their 50th episode Links Daniel on Twitter - @lakens Daniel’s course - www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences Daniel’s blog - daniellakens.blogspot.no Daniel’s recommended book - Understanding Psychology as a science https://he.palgrave.com/page/detail/?sf1=barcode&st1=9780230542303 Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Daniel Lakens.

Daniel Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology) drops in to talk statistical inference with James and Dan. Here’s what they cover: How did Daniel get into statistical inference? Are we overdoing the Frequentist vs. Bayes debate? What situations better suit Bayesian inference? The over advertising of Bayesian inference Study design is underrated The limits of p-values Why not report both p-values and Bayes factors? The “perfect t-test” script and the difference between Student’s and Welch’s t-tests The two-one sided test Frequentist and Bayesian approaches for stopping procedures Why James and Dan started the podcast The worst bits of advice that Daniel has heard about statistical inference Dan discuss a new preprint on Bayes factors in psychiatry Statistical power Excel isn’t all bad… The importance of accessible software We ask Daniel about his research workflow - how does he get stuff done? Using blog posts as a way of gauging interest in a topic Chris Chambers’ new book: The seven deadly sins of psychology Even more names for methodological terrorists Links Daniel on Twitter - @lakens Daniel’s course - https://www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences Daniel’s blog - http://daniellakens.blogspot.no TOSTER - http://daniellakens.blogspot.no/2016/12/tost-equivalence-testing-r-package.html Dan’s preprint on Bayesian alternatives for psychiatry research - https://osf.io/sgpe9/ Understanding the new statistics - https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-New-Statistics-Meta-Analysis-Multivariate/dp/041587968X Daniel’s effect size paper - http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863/full The seven deadly sins of Psychology - http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10970.html Special Guest: Daniel Lakens.