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.
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
6: The research pipeline - getting from idea to publication
James and Dan talk about getting from research idea to publication. They discuss the ethical approval process, getting research published, and share t...
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.
8: The PhD to Postdoc transition
James and Dan discuss how to navigate the PhD to Postdoc transition. They provide advice to a hypothetical first-year graduate student and also discus...
9: What happens if your research is wrong?
James and Dan discuss what happens if your research is wrong. They talk about the recent controversy surrounding tDCS, why many people don't hold nega...
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...
13: Academic horror stories
Dan and James discuss a few academic horror stories sent in by their listeners
14: Science communication
Dan and James discuss public engagement, science communication, and the internet outrage machine
15: Software and coding
Dan and James discuss software and coding, including the tools they use
16: What makes a good psych study?
What are the defining characteristics of a good psychology study? We received this excellent question from a listener and decided to do a whole episod...
17: Journals: Do we need them?
Do we really need scientific journals?
18: Data sharing
Withholding data: bad science or scientific misconduct?
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?
21: This is your brain on steroids
Dan and James discuss a new paper that compared brain structure in long-term steroid users and non-using weightlifters
22: Pokemon and public health
Pokemon Go is sweeping the world and getting people walking again! But is the Pokemon Go 'model' a golden opportunity to tackle obesity or just anothe...
23: Serious academics
Can you be a "serious academic" while still posting photos on Instagram? In this episode, James and Dan discuss a recent article bemoaning the infiltr...
24: Incentive structures in science
Science funding has a series of built in incentive structures, but what sort of science does this produce?
25: Misunderstanding p-values
P-values are universal, but do we really know what they mean? In this episode, Dan and James discuss a recent paper describing the failure to correctl...
26: Interpreting effect sizes
Dan and James discuss Dan's recent preprint describing an effect size distribution analysis on HRV studies.
27: Complaints and grievances
Dan and James discuss complaints and grievances. Stay tuned for part 2 (next episode) where things get positive.
28: Positive developments in biomedical science
Pre-registration, p-hacking, power, protocols. All these concepts are pretty mainstream in 2016 but hardly discussed 5 years ago. In this episode, Jam...
29: Learning new skills
Dan and James talk about how they learn new things
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...
32: Can worrying about getting sick make you sicker?
Dan and James discuss a new population study that linked health anxiety data with future heart disease
33: Zombie theories
Dan and James discuss Zombie theories, which are scientific ideas that continue to live on in the absence of evidence. Why do these ideas persist and ...
34: E-health (with Robin Kok)
Dan and James have their very first guest! For this episode they're joined by Robin Kok (University of Southern Denmark) to talk e-health. They also c...
35: A manifesto for reproducible science
Dan and James discuss a new paper in the inaugural issue of Nature Human Behaviour, "A manifesto for reproducible science"
36: Statistical inconsistencies in published research
In episode 34 we covered a blog post that highlighted questionable analytical approaches in psychology. That post mentioned four studies that resulted...
37: Work/life balance in academia
In this episode, we talk work/life balance for early career researchers. Do you need to work a 70-hour week to be a successful scientist or can you ac...
38: Work/life balance - Part 2
Dan and James continue their discussion on work/life balance in academia. They also suggest ways to get your work done within a sane amount of hours a...
39: Academic hipsters
In this episode, James and Dan discuss academic hipsters. These are people who *insist* you need to use specific tools in your science like R, python,...
40: Meta-research (with Michèle Nuijten)
Dan and James are joined by Michèle Nuijten (Tilburg University) to discuss 'statcheck', an algorithm that automatically scans papers for statistical ...
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...
42: Some of my best friends are Bayesians (with Daniel Lakens)
Daniel Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology) drops in to talk statistical inference with James and Dan.
43: Death, taxes, and publication bias in meta-analysis (with Daniel Lakens)
Daniel Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology) joins James and Dan to talk meta-analysis
44: Who’s afraid of the New Bad People? (with Nick Brown)
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,...
45: Conferences and conspiracy theories
It’s conference season so in this episode Dan and James discuss the ins and outs of scientific conferences
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 ...
47: Truth bombs from a methodological freedom fighter (with Anne Scheel)
In this episode, Dan and James are joined by Anne Scheel (LMU Munich) to discuss open science advocacy
48: Breaking up with the impact factor (with Jason Hoyt)
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
49: War and p's
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 statist...
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
54: Cuckoo Science
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 liter...
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
56: Registered reports (with Chris Chambers)
Dan and James are joined by Chris Chambers (Cardiff University) to discuss the Registered Reports format
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...
60: This is more of a comment than a question
Dan and James answer listener questions on academic conferences, getting abreast of the literature, and conflicts of interest
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
62: Adopting open science practices (with Dorothy Bishop)
Dan and James chat about the adoption of open science practices with Dorothy Bishop, Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology at the University of O...
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...
68: Friends don’t let friends believe in impact factors (with Nathan Hall)
This episode includes part two of a chat with Nathan Hall (McGill University), who is the person behind the ’Shit academics say’ account (@AcademicsSa...
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...
71: Moving for your job
In this episode, we chat about whether it’s necessary to move for an academic job to demonstrate “independence”
72: Anonymity in scientific publishing
Dan and James discuss a new journal of "controversial ideas" that will allow authors to publish articles anonymously. They also launch their Patreon p...
73: Update your damn syllabus
Dan and James discuss what's missing from biobehavioral science course syllabi
74: Seeing double (with Elisabeth Bik)
In this episode, Dan and James chat with microbiologist Elisabeth Bik about about the detection of problematic images in scientific papers, the state ...
75: Overlay journals (with Daniele Marinazzo)
We’re joined by Daniele Marinazzo (University of Ghent) to chat about the recently launched overlay journal Neurons, Behavior, Data analysis and Theor...
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...
78: Large-scale collaborative science (with Lisa DeBruine)
We chat with Lisa DeBruine (University of Glasgow) about her experiences with large-scale collaborative science and how her psychology department made...
79: Clinical trial reporting (with Henry Drysdale)
We chat with Henry Drysdale (University of Oxford), co-founder of the COMPare trials project, which compared clinical trial registrations with reporte...
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...
81: Too Young To Know, Too Old To Care
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 r...
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?
83: Back to our dirty unwashed roots
By popular demand, Dan and James are kicking it old school and just shoot the breeze. They cover whether scientists should be on Twitter, if Fortnite ...
84: A GPS in the Garden of Forking Paths
We chat with Amy Orben, who applies "multiverse" methodology to combat and expose analytical flexibility in her research area of the impact of digital...
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...
86: Should I stay or should I go?
Dan and James answer a listener question on whether they should stick it out for a few months in a toxic lab to get one more paper or if they should l...
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...
88: The pomodoro episode
Dan and James apply the pomodoro principle by tackling four topics within a strict ten-minute time limit each: James' new error detection tool, academ...
89: Conflicts of interest in psychology (with Tom Chivers)
We chat with Tom about whether psychology has a conflict-of-interest problem and how to best define conflicts.
90: Mo data mo problems
Dan and James discuss listener questions on performing secondary data analysis and the potential for prestige to creep into open science reforms.
91: Shifting the goalposts in statistics (with Kristin Sainani)
We chat with Kristin Sainani (Stanford University) about a popular statistical method in sports medicine research (magnitude based inference), which h...
92: Chaos in the brickyard
Dan and James discuss the role of Google Scholar in citation patterns and whether we should limit academics to only publishing two papers a year.
93: Double-blind peer review vs. open science
Dan and James answer a listener question on how to navigate open science practices, such as preprints and open code repositories, in light of double-b...
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...
95: All good presentations are alike; each bad presentation is bad in its own way
Dan and James discuss why academia tolerates bad presentations and the strange distrust of polished presentations.
96: The chaotic state of doctoral research
Dan and James discuss the results of this year's Nature survey of PhD students. Despite a majority of students reporting general satisfaction with the...
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 ...
98: Episode titles are redundant, at best (with Sophia Crüwell)
We chat with Sophia Crüwell (Meta-Research Innovation Center Berlin) about pre-registration and her recent work introducing pre-registration templates...
99: Science advocacy
Dan and James answer a listener question on science advocacy. Is this an activity that all scientists should do, and if so, how much advocacy work sho...
100: Hundredth episode live special (with Daniel Lakens, Amy Orben, and Chris Chambers)
To celebrate our 100th episode, which we video-streamed live, Dan and James were joined by three special guests: Daniel Lakens, Amy Orben, and Chris C...
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
105: Tell it like it is (with Marike Schiffer)
We chat with Marike Schiffer, who is a Senior Editor at Nature Human Behavior, about her journal's push to increase reproducibility in the behavioral ...
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...
111: The cumulative advantage of academic capital (with Chris Jackson)
We chat with Chris Jackson (Imperial College, London) about the "Matthew Effect" in academia, how we can improve work/balance, and whether we should s...
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...
114: Diversity in science (with Jess Wade)
We chat with Jess Wade (Imperial College London) about diversity issues in science, including her work increasing the profile of underrepresented scie...
115: A modest proposal
We discuss James' recent proposal that scientists should be paid for performing peer review for journals published by for-profit companies—$450, to be...
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...
118: Evidence-free gatekeeping
Dan and James answer audio listener questions on the worst review comments they've received (and how the responded), their thoughts on the current sta...
119: Rules of thumb
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 evaluati...
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...
123: Authenticated anonymity (with Michael Eisen)
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 submissio...
124: From Ptolemy to Takeshi's Castle
We discuss under which circumstances retracting decades-old articles is worth the time. We also chat about why LinkenIn is underrated (yes, really) an...
125: Upon reasonable request
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 dec...
126: The division of scientific labor (with Saloni Dattani)
We have a wide-ranging chat with Saloni Dattani (Kings College London and University of Hong Kong) about the benefits of dividing scientific labor, th...
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...
128: How do you generate new research ideas?
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 lab...
129: Transparency audits
Dan and James discuss the recently proposed "transparency audit", why it received so much blowback, and the characteristics of successful reform schem...
130: Normalizing retractions (with Dorothy Bishop)
Dan and James chat with Dorothy Bishop (University of Oxford) about the importance of normalizing the retraction of scientific papers, publication eth...
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...
132: Post-pandemic academia
Dan and James discuss how academia operate in a post-pandemic world. What pandemic practices should we keep and what should we abandon?
133: Manuscript submission fees
Some journals use nominal manuscript submission fees to discourage frivolous submissions. However, it has been suggested that increasing submission fe...
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...
138: Preprints in the time of coronavirus (with Michele Avissar-Whiting)
We chat with Michele Avissar-Whiting about her role as the Editor-in-chief of the Research Square preprint platform and how she weighs up the benefits...
139: Open science from a funder's perspective (with Ashley Farley)
We chat with Ashley Farley about her background as an academic librarian, the underrecognised importance of copyright in academic publishing, and her ...
140: You can’t buy cat biscuits with ‘thank you’ emails
James proposes that peer review reports should be published as their own citable objects, provided that the manuscript author thinks that the peer rev...
141: Why we should diversify study samples (with Sakshi Ghai)
We chat with Sakshi Ghai (University of Cambridge) about why we should diversify sample diversity and retire the Western, educated, rich, industrializ...
142: Red flags in academia [Live episode]
In this live episode, Dan and James discuss red flags in academia, in terms of research fields, papers, and individuals.
143: A little less conversation, a little more action
Dan and James discuss the differences between 'talk' and 'action' in scientific reform and why reforms are taking such a long time to be realised. The...
144: The role of luck in academia
If your child asked you whether they should pursue a career in academia, what would you say? We discuss this question along three more quick-fire topi...
145: Our boat is sinking slightly slower
We discuss the results from the cancer biology reproducibility project, the inevitable comparisons with reproducibility in psychology, and authorship ...
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...
148: Academic reference letters
Dan and James chat about why academic reference letters are terrible, a recent position statement on preprints (also terrible), and whether the "great...
149: Medical misinformation (with Rohin Francis)
Dan and James chat with cardiologist Rohin Francis about medical misinformation and how he uses YouTube for science communication
150: Why can't you do nothing?
We discuss the latest paper to seriously use the Kardashian index, which is the discrepancy between a scientist's publication record and social media ...
151: The dirty dozen
Dan and James discuss a new preprint that details twelve p-hacking strategies and simulates their impact on false-positive rates. They also discuss th...
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...
157: Limitations
Dan and James discuss a new preprint that examined the types of limitations authors discuss in their published articles and whether these limitation t...
158: Word limits
By popular demand, Dan and James chat about journal word and page limits. They also the debate around a recent meta-analysis on nudge interventions
159: Peer review isn't working (with Saloni Dattani)
Dan and James are joined by Saloni Dattani for a chat about the history of peer review, a reimagination of what peer review could look like, what happ...
160: Whistleblowing
Dan and James share ten rules for whistleblowing academic misconduct.
161: The memo (with Brian Nosek)
Dan and James are joined by Brian Nosek (Co-founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science) to discuss the recent White House Office of...
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...
164: The great migration
James and Dan discuss the recent migration of scientists from Twitter to Mastodon and the pros and cons of sharing the prior submission history of man...
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...
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.