x

75% of people globally want unbiased news (Pew Research) but are concerned they're not getting that.

Get balanced coverage with Symby. See how stories are covered across diverse outlets and spot when one side covers a story the other skips.

PODCAST

Everything Hertz

Methodology, scientific life, and bad language. Co-hosted by Dr. Dan Quintana (University of Oslo) and Dr. James Heathers (Cipher Skin)

science social sciences

All Episodes

49:08

133: Manuscript submission fees

Everything Hertz ·

2021/06/07

Some journals use nominal manuscript submission fees to discourage frivolous submissions. However, it has been suggested that increasing submission fees could reduce article processing charges. Dan and James discuss this proposal, along with the recently released code of conduct for scientific integrity from the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. James’ Atlantic piece

en-au

50:44

132: Post-pandemic academia

Everything Hertz ·

2021/05/17

Dan and James discuss how academia should operate in a post-pandemic world. What pandemic practices should we keep and what should we abandon? Links and details: Quiz: Norwegian metal band or Norwegian town? Things are slowly getting back to normal in some (but not alI) countries. So what academic practices and routines should we keep from the pandemic and what should we kiss goodbye? Would it be possible to be physically located at your local university but to be employed/educated at another

en-au

1:03:12

131: Long live the overhead projector!

Everything Hertz ·

2021/05/03

Dan and James answer listener audio questions on indirect costs for research grants, the mind/body problem, and why many academics aren't trained to teach. They also profess their love for the overhead projector Some more details: * Should we require universities to justify overhead costs, like heating and electricity? * Overheads can inflate the costs of grants, some grants provide an additional percentage for overheads but others don’t allow this, which can eat into grants * Get to know the people

en-au

1:00:14

130: Normalizing retractions (with Dorothy Bishop)

Everything Hertz ·

2021/04/19

Dan and James chat with Dorothy Bishop (University of Oxford) about the importance of normalizing the retraction of scientific papers, publication ethics, and whether paper mills (companies that make fake papers at scale) are an issue in the psychological sciences Here are some links and stuff we covered: Dorothy's thoughts on how the adoption of open science practices has been progressing since we last had her on the show in June 2018 The European Research Council's new open access journal, which

en-au

56:51

129: Transparency audits

Everything Hertz ·

2021/04/05

Dan and James discuss the recently proposed "transparency audit", why it received so much blowback, and the characteristics of successful reform schemes The specifics... The computational research integrity conference (https://cri-conf.org/) The transparancy leaderboard (https://etiennelebel.com/cs/t-leaderboard/t-leaderboard.html) proposed by Curate Science (https://curatescience.org/app/home) Our episode with Chris Jackson (https://everythinghertz.com/111), that James mentioned What about a

en-au

1:11:27

128: How do you generate new research ideas?

Everything Hertz ·

2021/03/15

Dan and James chat about how they come up with new ideas, why everyone seems to be trying to monetise their hobbies, and why it's so hard for most labs to have a singular focus of research. We had some problems with James' mic so the quality of his audio wasn't up our usual standard. To make up for this we've added one of our older bonus episodes at the end of this conventional episode (this begins at 54:18). These bonus episodes are typically only made available for our Professor Fancypants Patreon

en-au

51:11

127: Speak up or shut up?

Everything Hertz ·

2021/03/01

We discuss when is the right time in your academic career to begin speaking up to critique your research field or whether the risk of retaliation means you should shut up and keep your head down. This was a recorded Clubhouse chat, which includes some audience interaction at the end. Links and details: Moin Syed's blogpost (http://getsyeducated.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-time-for-criticism-is-now.html), which was the inspiration for this topic The 'proper' letter to the editor critique vs. a social

en-au

52:13

126: The division of scientific labor (with Saloni...

Everything Hertz ·

2021/02/15

We have a wide-ranging chat with Saloni Dattani (Kings College London and University of Hong Kong) about the benefits of dividing scientific labor, the magazine she co-founded (Works in Progress) that shares novel ideas and stories of progress, and fighting online misinformation Here are some links and other stuff we cover Follow Saloni on Twitter: https://twitter.com/salonium Why Saloni started the Works in Progress (https://worksinprogress.co/) magazine Overleaf (overleaf.com), for writing papers

en-au

46:58

125: Upon reasonable request

Everything Hertz ·

2021/02/01

Dan has a blue-sky proposal to increase data sharing—that funders mandate scholars to store and analyse data on their servers for which the funder decides what constitutes a reasonable data request (among other benefits) Other stuff covered: We return with part 2 of "overrated/underrated/appropately rated", in which James throws nouns at Dan and he responds with whether these things are overrated, underrated, or appropately rated. Joe Hilgard's blog post

en-au

51:17

124: From Ptolemy to Takeshi's Castle

Everything Hertz ·

2021/01/18

We discuss under which circumstances retracting decades-old articles is worth the time. We also chat about why LinkenIn is underrated (yes, really) and special journal issues are overrated. A more specific list of topics and links: We play a game of "overated/underated", in which Dan has a list of stuff that he asks James whether these things are overrated or underated (or appropiated rated) Why LinkedIn is underated Graphical abstracts are underrated Online conferences are underrated Authors should

en-au

53:49

123: Authenticated anonymity (with Michael Eisen)

Everything Hertz ·

2021/01/04

Part two of our chat with Michael Eisen (eLife Editor-in-Cheif), in which we discuss the pros and cons of collaborative peer review, journal submission interfaces, Michael's take on James' proposal that peer reviewers should be paid $450 dollars, why negative comments on peer reviews need to be normalised, plus much more. Some more details: - The pros and cons of collaborative peer review (in which all peer reviewers discuss the paper after all individual peer reviews have been submitted - How

en-au

40:04

122: Reoptimizing scientific publishing for the...

Everything Hertz ·

2020/12/21

The internet should have transformed science publishing, but it didn't. We chat with Michael Eisen (Editor-in-Chief of eLife (https://elifesciences.org/)) about reoptimizing scientific publishing and peer review for the internet age. Here what we cover and some links: How Michael co-founded PLOS (https://plos.org/) The book Dan mentioned on the history of the scientific journal (https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo28179042.html) Why did eLife launch? What did it offer that other

en-au

57:35

121: Transparent peer review

Everything Hertz ·

2020/12/07

Dan and James discuss the pros and cons of transparent peer-review, in which peer review reports are published alongside manuscripts, as a keynote feature at the recent Munin Conference on scholarly publishing. Here's what they cover and some links: Watch the video of this episode (https://youtu.be/1Xp3IXaq970) on the Everything Hertz YouTube page What is transparent peer-review? The permanancy of open peer review reports CLOCKSS (https://clockss.org/) provides a sustainable dark archive to ensure

en-au

47:26

120: How false beliefs spread in science (with Cailin...

Everything Hertz ·

2020/11/16

Dan and James chat with Cailin O'Connor (University of California, Irvine) about the how false beliefs spread in science and remedies for this issue Here's what they cover: Why should psychologist scientists learn about the philosophy of science? Cailin's new preprint on error propogation that she co-authrored Boyd and Richerson's "Culture and the Evolutionary Process" book (https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo5970597.html) Episode 91 with Kristin Sainani

en-au

56:46

119: Rules of thumb

Everything Hertz ·

2020/11/02

Dan and James discuss how rules of thumbs in science, such as those often applied to sample sizes and effect sizes, lead to mindless research evaluation. More info and links: Is there any justifcation for holding back the public posting of data becuase you're not done with your analyses We have a new episode partner, Scite (https://scite.ai/)! Scite helps researchers quickly see how a research paper has been cited and if it has been supported or disputed by subsequent research Get a 30% discount on

en-au

1:04:32

118: Evidence-free gatekeeping

Everything Hertz ·

2020/10/19

Dan and James answer audio listener questions on the worst review comments they've received (and how the responded), their thoughts on the current state of preprints, and how institutional prestige influences researcher evaluations. Other points and links: Send in your audio question at our website (https://everythinghertz.com/audio-question) Listen to our episode with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti (https://everythinghertz.com/107), on memes, TikTok, and science communication The worst peer reviewers we

en-au

1:04:50

117: How we peer-review papers

Everything Hertz ·

2020/10/05

Dan and James choose a preprint and walk through how they would peer-review it. James also provides an update on his recent proposal that scientists should be paid for performing peer reviews for journals published by for-profit companies Specific links and topics: An update on the 450 movement (https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-450-movement-1f86132a29bd), which proposes that scientists should be paid for performing peer reviews for journals published by for-profit companies You should follow

en-au

1:17:14

116: In my opinion

Everything Hertz ·

2020/09/21

Dan and James chat about a recent twitter discussion on open science funding and the benefits of Editors sharing their opinions online. James also shares three project proposals that he thinks deserves funding, which Dan ranks. Other stuff... The Twitter thread (https://twitter.com/tage_rai/status/1304985745157914624?s=20) from Tage Rai on conflicts of interest in funding on science The Raytheon Amphitheater (http://www.northeastern.edu/egan/raytheon.html) at Northeastern University How Nature

en-au

1:00:06

115: A modest proposal

Everything Hertz ·

2020/09/07

We discuss James' recent proposal that scientists should be paid for performing peer review for journals published by for-profit companies—$450, to be precise. Dan also puts forward three meta-science projects that he thinks are worth funding. More details * James' tweet (https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/1301533455520608256?s=20) proposing peer review should be compensated * Since recording this episode, James has set up the @450Movement twitter account (https://twitter.com/450movement) *

en-au

53:43

114: Diversity in science (with Jess Wade)

Everything Hertz ·

2020/08/17

We chat with Jess Wade (Imperial College London) about diversity issues in science, including her work increasing the profile of underrepresented scientists on Wikipedia and on getting more young women into science. Here's what we cover: Jess' Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jess_Wade) Inferior (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/553867/inferior-by-angela-saini/), by Angela Saini What's involved when making a bio page? The "notability" criteria for adding a scientist's bio on

en-au

193 results

Similar Podcasts

X Minus 1 - Old Time Radio Show

Inception Point Ai

Science, Spoken

WIRED

This Week in Space (Audio)

TWiT

DarshanTalks Podcast

Darshan Kulkarni

The Best of Coast to Coast AM

iHeartPodcasts and Coast to Coast AM