Avsnitt
-
We discuss how living meta‑analyses—meta‑analyses that are continuously updated as new studies appear—can cut research waste and keep evidence current. We also chat about how using synthetic research participants is a terrible idea.
Links
The BMJ Christmas special paper on how recent is "recent"The synthetic panel serviceThe paper describing a living meta-analysis platform for oxytocin researchA preprint commentary on living meta-analysisSocial media links
Dan on Bluesky James on BlueskyEverything Hertz on Bluesky -
We discuss whether preprint servers and journals should require author identity verification for submitting manuscripts. This would probably speed up the submission process, but is this worth the potential downsides? We also discuss the similarities and differences between academia and professional sports and a weird case of author identity theft.
Other links
The BJKS podcast https://bjks.buzzsprout.comSocial media links
Dan on Bluesky James on BlueskyEverything Hertz on Bluesky -
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
Dan and James chat about a a new 'pop-up journal' concept for addressing specific research questions. They also answer a listener question from a journal grammar editor and discuss a new PNAS article on paper mills
Links
The pop-up journalThe episode where Dan's wife went into laborThe PNAS paper mill paperA blog post from the PNAS paper lead author, Reese Richardson.The Nature piece on the paperSocial media links
Dan on Bluesky James on BlueskyEverything Hertz on BlueskyCitation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, August 7). 193: The pop-up journal, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/2ZMQ7
-
Dan and James answer listener questions on outsourcing in academia and differences in research culture between academic institutions and commercial institutions.
Social media links
Dan on Bluesky James on BlueskyEverything Hertz on BlueskyCitation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, July 1). 192: Outsourcing in academia, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3MC2R -
James and Dan discuss James' newly funded 'Medical Evidence Project', whose goal is to find questionable medical evidence that is contaminating treatment guidelines.
Links
James' blog post from last year The carthorse child blog postThe blog post announcing the projectA write up in Nature about the projectOther links
Dan on Bluesky James on BlueskyEverything Hertz on BlueskyCitation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, June 4). 191: Cleaning up contaminated medical treatment guidelines Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/537BN
-
We chat about two new studies that took different approaches for evaluating the impact of paying reviewers on peer review speed and quality.
Links
James' 450 movement proposalThe paper from Critical Care Medicine The preprint from Biology OpenOther links
Dan on Bluesky James on BlueskyEverything Hertz on BlueskyCitation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, April 2). 190: What happens when you pay reviewers?, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/PHQ2K -
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 almetrics trigger could be alternatively used for a more immediate post-publication critique.
Links
The Chonicle piece by Andrew Gelman and Andrew King [Free to read with email registration]The paper by Peder Isager and collegues on how to decide what papers we should replicate. Here is the preprint.The ERROR projectOther links
Dan on Bluesky James on BlueskyEverything Hertz on Bluesky
Everything Hertz on BlueskyCitation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, Mar 2). 189: Crit me baby, one more time, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3X5UR
-
Dan and James discuss a recent editorial which argues that double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity.
Links
The editorial from Christopher Mebane: https://doi.org/10.1093/etojnl/vgae046Other links
Dan on Bluesky James on BlueskyEverything Hertz on Bluesky
Everything Hertz on BlueskySupport us on Patreon 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 monthCitation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, Jan 30). Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6XS29
-
We chat about the events that started the replication crisis in psychology and Dorothy Bishop's recent resignation from the Royal Society
Links
The resignation blogpost from Dorothy BishopThe bluesky post from Sarah Weiten that asked the question, "If you had to cite an event that opened the "replication crisis" era, what would you point to?"The "Year of Horrors" paper from Eric-Jan WagenmakersOther links
Dan on Bluesky James on BlueskyEverything Hertz on Bluesky
Everything Hertz on BlueskySupport us on Patreon 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 monthCitation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Dec 3). 187: What started the replication crisis era?, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/EC7QH
-
In this episode we chat about a Nordic approach for evaluating the journal quality and how we should be teaching undergraduates to evaluate journal and article quality
Links
The Norwegian journal registerThe Finnish journal registerEpisode 22, where we played "Pokemon or Cholesterol medication?"Other links
Dan on twitter James on twitterEverything Hertz on twitter Everything Hertz on Facebook
Everything Hertz on social mediaSupport us on Patreon 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 monthCitation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Nov 13). 186: Evaluating journal quality, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KB37U
-
We discuss the recent retraction of a paper that reported the effects of rigour-enhancing practices on replicability. We also cover James' new estimate that 1 out of 7 scientific papers are fake.
Links
The story about data integrity concerns in 130 women’s health papers James' new preprint with the estimate that 1 out of 7 scientific papers are fakeThe retracted paper in Nature Human Behavior by Protzko and coworkersThe Matters Arising article from Bak-Coleman and Devezer, who initially raised concerns about the paper from Protzko and coworkers.The Everything Hertz merch store The paper about puns/jokes in paper titlesThe "Everything Hertz" paper from JamesDan's only paper with a pun in the titleOther links
Dan on twitter James on twitterEverything Hertz on twitter Everything Hertz on Facebook
Everything Hertz on social mediaSupport us on Patreon 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 monthCitation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Oct 4). 185: The Retraction, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/528SF
-
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 behaviorMain 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 researchDiamond 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 James on twitterEverything Hertz on twitter Everything Hertz on FacebookSupport us on Patreon 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 monthCitation
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 processThe 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/s13041-020-0552-2The STALT preprint: https://osf.io/6hsteOther links
Everything Hertz on social media
Dan on twitter James on twitterEverything Hertz on twitter Everything Hertz on FacebookSupport us on Patreon 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 monthCitation
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
-
Dan and James answer a listener question on what practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields.
Here are the main takeaways:
Keeping laboratory records and using electronic lab management software is beneficial practices biology that would benefit the behavioral sciencesThe rate of pre-registration of meta-analysis in psychology is low, unlike other fields, which have a higher pre-registration rate. Here is the preprint on pre-registration of psychology meta-analyses that was mentioned: https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/627a4Case studies (somewhat common in medicine) can provide valuable insights, especially when there is aggressive sampling and oversampling of single pointsDouble-blinded should not be adopted. as these can be challenging to implement effectively and may not always work as intendedPhilosophers often (but not always) have a clear writing style and structure their arguments well, which can be enjoyable to read and should be more widely adoptedThe publishing industry needs more innovation, particularly in the areas of peer review and editorial processesOther links
Everything Hertz on social media
Dan on twitter James on twitterEverything Hertz on twitter Everything Hertz on FacebookSupport us on Patreon 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 monthCitation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, July 2). 182: What practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields? Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XN8DT
-
We discuss how following citation chains in psychology can often lead to unexpected places, and how this can contribute to unreplicable findings. We also discuss why team science has taken longer to catch on in psychology compared to other research fields.
Here is the preprint that we mentioned authored by Andrew Gelman and Nick Brown - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/ekmdfOur episode with Nick Brown - https://everythinghertz.com/44Other links
Dan on twitter James on twitterEverything Hertz on twitter Everything Hertz on Facebook
Everything Hertz on social mediaSupport us on Patreon 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 monthCitation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2024, June 3) "181: Down the rabbit hole", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/C7F9N
-
Dan and James discuss why innovation in scientific publishing is so hard, an emerging consortium peer review model, and a recent replication of the 'refilling soup bowl' study.
Other things they cover and links:
Which studies should we spend time replicating?The business models of for-profit scientific publishers How many tacos can you buy with the money it costs to publish open access in Nature?The original soup bowl study: https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2005.12The replication study: https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001503The Peer Community In initiative: https://peercommunityin.org/Stuart Buck's newsletter: https://goodscience.substack.comOther links
Dan on twitter James on twitterEverything Hertz on twitter Everything Hertz on Facebook
Everything Hertz on social mediaSupport us on Patreon 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 monthCitation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2024, May 2) "180: Consortium peer reviews", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/24FMP
-
Dan and James discuss how scientific research often neglects the importance of maintenance and long-term access for scientific tools and resources.
Other things they cover:
Should there be an annual limit on publications (even if this were somehow possible)?The downsides of PhD by publicationThe Gates Foundation's new Open Access policyOther links
Dan on twitter James on twitterEverything Hertz on twitter Everything Hertz on Facebook
Everything Hertz on social mediaSupport us on Patreon 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 monthCitation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2024, April 3) "179: Discovery vs. maintenance", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/KS8PV
-
Dan and James discuss the Retractobot service, which emails authors about papers they've cited that have been retracted. What should authors do if they discover a paper they've cited has been retracted after they published their paper?
Other things they chat about
A listener question about including examiner's comments in thesisThe different types of retractions and thier impactWhy aren't versioning systems more common in scientific publishing?Other links
Dan on twitter James on twitterEverything Hertz on twitter Everything Hertz on Facebook
Everything Hertz on social mediaSupport us on Patreon 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 monthCitation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2024, February 29) "178: Alerting researchers about retractions", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/T8HRD
-
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 also chat about the parallels between plagiarism and sports doping—would people reconsider academic dishonesty if they were reminded that future technology may catch them out?
Here are some of the takeaways from the episode (generated with the help of AI):
Plagiarism cases can range from minor academic practice issues to more serious instances of copying verbatimThe detection and punishment of plagiarism can vary depending on the context, such as academic journals or internal university issues.The mindset and motivations behind plagiarism can differ between athletes and students, with athletes often driven by intense competition.Long-term detectability and the potential consequences of cheating are factors that may discourage individuals from engaging in plagiarism.Addressing plagiarism requires a balance between identifying genuine cases and avoiding ideological biases.Other links
Dan on twitter James on twitterEverything Hertz on twitter Everything Hertz on Facebook
Everything Hertz on social mediaSupport us on Patreon 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 monthCitation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2024, January 31) "177: Plagiarism", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/4M3F2
-
We chat about a paper on the invisible workload of open science and why academics are so bad at tracking their workloads.
This episode was originally recorded in May 2023 in a hotel room just before our live recording of Episode 169, which is why we refer to the paper as a 'new' paper near the start of the episode.
Links
The paper on the invisible workload of open researchOur live and in-person episode with Sandra Matz on using big data to understand behaviorOther links
Dan on twitter James on twitterEverything Hertz on twitter Everything Hertz on Facebook
Everything Hertz on social mediaSupport us on Patreon 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 monthCitation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2023, December 29) "176: Tracking academic workloads", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U84JC
- Visa fler
