**Show notes** 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