Main content
Everything Hertz podcast
Contributors:
Date created: | Last Updated:
: DOI | ARK
Creating DOI. Please wait...
Category: Project
Description: A permanent archive of Everything Hertz podcast episodes. Each episode component contains an mp3 file, brief episode description, citation information, and full episode notes in the wiki section.
Files
Files can now be accessed and managed under the Files tab.
Citation
Components
1: So you want to measure heart rate variability...
Dan and James discuss what to do if you want to collect heart rate variability (HRV) data, oxytocin parties (yes, they're a thing), and the peer revie...
2: Nutrition and Psychiatry
Dan and James talk about nutrition and psychiatry. They also introduce themselves (you know, because that's what you do for your *second* episode) and...
3: Scientific publishing
Dan and James talk about Scihub and open access publishing.
4: Meta-analysis or mega-silliness?
Dan defends meta-analysis against more recent criticisms put forward by James and offers suggestions on how meta-analysis can be improved.
5: Do you even replicate?
James and Dan talk about replication in science, self-control, and the file-drawer problem in oxytocin research
7: The writing process
How do you write a lot and do it well? In this episode, James and Dan discuss the writing process and the tools they use to get things done.
10: Failure
James and Dan talk about failure. What's the benefit of openly sharing your failures - is this an antidote to the imposter syndrome or something only ...
11: The placebo effect
James and Dan discuss issues surrounding the placebo effect
12: Reporting heart rate variability studies
Dan and James discuss their latest paper, in which they propose heart rate variability reporting guidelines. They also talk about saunas (why not?) an...
15: Software and coding
Dan and James discuss software and coding, including the tools they use
19: Let us spray: oxytocin and spirituality
Dan and James discuss a recent paper on intranasal oxytocin and spirituality
20: Sample sizes in psychology studies
Can psychologists learn more by studying fewer people?
27: Complaints and grievances
Dan and James discuss complaints and grievances. Stay tuned for part 2 (next episode) where things get positive.
30: Authorship
Dan and James discuss authorship in the biomedical sciences
31: Discover your psychiatric risk with this one weird trick
Dan and James discuss a recent study of over one million Swedish men that found that higher resting heart rate late adolescence was associated with an...
41: Objecting to published research (with William Gunn)
In this episode, Dan and James are joined by William Gunn (Director of Scholarly communications at Elsevier) to discuss ways in which you can object t...
46: Statistical literacy (with Andy Field)
In this episode, Dan and James are joined by Andy Field (University of Sussex), author of the “Discovering Statistics” textbook series, to chat about ...
50: Special 50th episode (LIVE)
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 exp...
51: Preprints (with Jessica Polka)
In this episode, Dan and James are joined by Jessica Polka, Director of ASAPbio, to chat about preprints
52: Give p's a chance (with Daniel Lakens)
In this episode, Dan and James welcome back Daniel Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology) to discuss his new paper on justifying your alpha level
53: Skin in the game
Dan and James discuss whether you need to have “skin in the game” to critique research
55: The proposal to redefine clinical trials
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
57: Radical Transparency (with Rebecca Willén)
Dan and James are joined by Rebecca Willén (Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education) to discuss transparency in scientific rese...
58: Lessons from podcasting (with Simine Vazire)
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...
59: Rethinking the scientific journal (with Rickard Carlsson)
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 scie...
61: Performance enhancing thugs (with Greg Nuckols)
Dan and James chat with Greg Nuckols, who is grad student in exercise physiology, strength coach, and writer at strongerbyscience.com
63: Science journalism (with Brian Resnick)
Dan and James chat about science journalism with Brian Resnick, who is a science reporter at Vox.com
64: Salami slicing
Dan and James talk about the recent SIPS conference and answer a listener question on "salami slicing" the outcomes from one study into multiple paper...
65: Blockchain and open science (with Jon Brock)
Dan and James chat with Jon Brock (Cognitive scientist at Frankl) about the use of blockchain technology for open science
66: Ideal worlds vs grim truths
Dan and James answer listener questions on tips for starting your PhD and the role of statistics in exploratory research
67: Shit Academics Say (with 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’ Tw...
69: Open science tools (with Brian Nosek)
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 impl...
70: Doubling-blinding dog balls
Dan and James discuss the recent "grievance studies" hoax, whereby three people spent a year writing twenty-one fake manuscripts for submission to var...
76: Open peer review
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 the...
77: Promiscuous expertise
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 wha...
80: Cites are not endorsements (with Sean Rife)
We chat with Sean Rife, who the co-founder of scite.ai, a start-up that combines natural language processing with a network of experts to evaluate the...
82: More janitors and fewer architects
We answer a listener question on the possible negative consequences of the open science movement—are things moving too quickly?
85: GWAS big teeth you have, grandmother (with Kevin Mitchell)
We chat with Kevin Mitchell (Trinity College Dublin) about what the field of psychology can learn from genetics research, how our research theories te...
87: Improving the scientific poster (with Mike Morrison)
We chat with Mike Morrison, a former User Experience (UX) designer who quit his tech career to research how we can bring UX design principles to scien...
94: Predicting the replicability of research
Dan and James chat with Fiona Fidler (University of Melbourne), who is leading the repliCATS project, which aims to develop accurate techniques to eli...
97: Slow science
Dan and James discuss the concept of "slow science", which has been proposed in order to improve the quality of scientific research and create a more ...
101: Punishing research misconduct
Dan and James discuss a new paper which discusses whether research misconduct should be criminalised. If so, where do we draw the line and who should ...
102: Master of None
Should research scientists build their knowledge and skillset broadly at the risk of being a master of none? Dan and James discuss this, along with a ...
103: Swiping right
Dan and James discuss rejection in academia and emerging science communication platforms
104: Now we'll discover which meetings could've been emails
Dan and James discuss the COVID-19 pandemic and how it's impacting academia
106: Science on the run
Dan and James discuss whether getting rapid outcomes to address the pandemic is worth the increased risk of mistakes—how can researchers perform resea...
107: Memes, TikTok, and science communication (with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti)
We chat with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti (Chapman University, USA) about the role of memes and emerging social media in communicating science and statis...
108: Requiem for a Screen
We discuss the recent claim that screen time is more harmful than heroin and whether psychological science is a crisis-ready discipline
109: Open scientific publishing [Live episode]
Dan and James recorded a live episode on open publishing as part of the Open Publishing Fest. They also ran a survey (from start to finish) during the...
110: Red flags for errors in papers
We answer a listener question on identifying red flags for errors in papers. Is there a way to better equip peer-reviewers for spotting errors and sus...
112: Leaving academia
Dan and James chat about James' new industry job, why he quit academia, the biggest differences between academia and industry, and why it's crucial fo...
113: Citation needed
Dan and James discuss whether scientists should spend more time creating and editing Wikipedia articles. They also chat about how they read scientific...
116: In my opinion
Dan and James chat about a recent twitter discussion on open science funding and the benefits of Editors sharing their opinions online. James also out...
117: How we peer-review papers
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 s...
120: How false beliefs spread in science (with Cailin O'Connor)
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
121: Transparent peer review
Dan and James discuss the pros and cons of transparent peer-review, in which peer review reports are published alongside manuscripts, as a keynote fea...
122: Reoptimizing scientific publishing for the internet age (with Michael Eisen)
The internet should have transformed science publishing, but it didn't. We chat with Michael Eisen (Editor-in-Chief of eLife) about reoptimizing scien...
127: Speak up or shut up?
When is the right time in your academic career to begin speaking up to critiquing your research field? Or does the risk of retaliation mean you should...
131: Long live the overhead projector!
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 t...
134: Paywalled questionnaires
We discuss a recent retraction triggered by the authors not paying a copyright fee to use a questionnaire for research described their paper (that als...
135: A loss of confidence
Dan Quintana and James Heathers chat about well-known psychology studies that we've now lost confidence in due to replication failures and the role of...
136: Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewed journals?
We discuss journalreviewer.org, a website that provides a forum for researchers to share their experiences with the peer review process. We also cover...
137: Ten rules for improving academic work-life balance
Dan and James share their thoughts on a recent paper that proposes ten rules for improving academic work-life balance for early career researchers and...
146: Skills pay bills
We answer a series of questions from a listener on whether to start a PhD, what to ask potential supervisors, the financial perils of being a PhD stud...
147: The $7000 golden ticket
We discuss the $7000 'accelerated publication' option for some Taylor & Francis journals that promises 3-5 week publication, and a novel type of r...
152: Sorry Not Sorry
James and Dan chat about apologies vs. non-apologies, how to decide when to call it quits on a paper, and governments vetoing research proposals recom...
153: Shame shame shame
We discuss a journal's new "wall of shame" page, which details unethical behaviours in an effort to discourage future misconduct. We also cover scient...
154: When the evidence is constructed around the narrative
We chat about the Theranos story and the parallels with academic research, as well as Twitter's new owner and whether academics will *actually* leave ...
155: Don't you know who I am?
We chat about appeals to authority when responding to scientific critique, university ranking systems, Goodhart’s law (and its origin), and private in...
156: Looking for seeders
Dan and James discuss a recent paper that concluded (again) that most researchers aren't compliant with their published data sharing statement and whe...
162: Status bias in peer review
We chat about a recent preprint describing an experiment on the role of author status in peer-review, dodgy conference proceedings journals, and autho...
163: eLife's new peer review model
Dan and James discuss eLife's new peer review model, in which they no longer make accept/reject decisions at the end of the peer-review process. Inste...
165: Self-promotion
Dan and James chat about self-promotion in academia, how they both wish they had doctoral defences (these aren't a thing in Australia), and replacing ...
167: Diluted effect sizes
Dan and James chat about an new study that uses homeopathy studies to evaluate bias in biomedical research, a new-ish type of authorship fraud, and th...
168: Meta-meta-science
Dan and James discuss a new paper that reviews potential issues in metascience practices. They also talk about their upcoming live show in early May i...
169: Using big data to understand behavior (Live episode with Sandra Matz)
In our first ever live and in-person episode, we chat with Sandra Matz about the opportunities and challenges for using big data to understand human b...
170: Holy sheet
We discuss evidence of data tampering in a series of experiments investigating dishonesty revealed via excel spreadsheet metadata and how traditional ...
171: The easiest person to fool is yourself (with Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris)
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...
175: Defending against the scientific dark arts
We chat about a recent blogpost from Dorothy Bishop, in which she proposes a Master course that will provide training in fraud detection—what should s...
176: Tracking academic workloads
We chat about a paper on the invisible workload of open science and why academics are so bad at tracking their workloads
177: Plagiarism
We discuss two recent plagiarism cases, one you've probably heard about and another that you probably haven't heard about if you're outside Norway. We...
179: Discovery vs. maintenance
Dan and James discuss how scientific research often neglects the importance of maintenance and long-term access for scientific tools and resources
180: Consortium peer reviews
Dan and James discuss why innovation in scientific publishing is so hard, an emerging consortium peer review model, and a recent replication of the 'r...
181: Down the rabbit hole
We discuss how following citation chains in psychology can often lead to unexpected places, and how this can contribute to unreplicable findings. We a...
182: What practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields?
Dan and James answer a listener question on what practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields
183: Too beautiful to be true
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 littl...
184: A race to the bottom
Open access articles have democratized the availability of scientific research, but are author-paid publication fees undermining the quality of scienc...
185: The Retraction
We discuss the recent retraction of a paper that reported the effects of rigour-enhancing practices on replicability. We also cover James' new estimat...
186: Evaluating journal quality
In this episode we chat about a Nordic approach for evaluating the journal quality and how we should be teaching undergraduates to evaluate journal an...
187: What started the replication crisis era?
We chat about the events that started the replication crisis in psychology and Dorothy Bishop's recent resignation from the Royal Society
188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity
Dan and James discuss a recent editorial which argues that double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity
189: Crit me baby, one more time
Dan and James discuss a recent piece that proposes a post-publication review process, which is triggered by citation counts. They also cover how an al...
190: What happens when you pay reviewers?
We chat about two new studies that took different approaches for evaluating the impact of paying reviewers on peer review speed and quality.
Recent Activity
OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.
Accept
×
Start managing your projects on the OSF today.
Free and easy to use, the Open Science Framework supports the entire research lifecycle: planning, execution, reporting, archiving, and discovery.