Everything Hertz

Mar 02 2025 189 ep. 55 mins 4.5k
Everything Hertz Podcast artwork

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

  Science  Health & Fitness
RSS feed Share
Copy RSS


Subscribe on Podcast Addict


189: Crit me baby, one more time

Mar 02 2025 53 mins  
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

188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity

Jan 30 2025 54 mins  
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/vgae046 Other links Everything Hertz on Bluesky Dan on Bluesky James on Bluesky Everything Hertz on Bluesky Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20%

187: What started the replication crisis era?

Dec 03 2024 55 mins  
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 Bishop The 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 "Y

186: Evaluating journal quality

Nov 13 2024 43 mins  
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 register The Finnish journal register Episode 22, where we played "Pokemon or Cholesterol medication?" Other links Everything Hertz on social media Dan on twitter James o

185: The Retraction

Oct 03 2024 68 mins  
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 fake The retracted pape

184: A race to the bottom

Sep 05 2024 48 mins  
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 behavior Main edisode takeaways (AI-assisted summary) There is a wide variability in the quality of paper

183: Too beautiful to be true

Aug 02 2024 45 mins  
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 transp

182: What practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields?

Jul 02 2024 51 mins  
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 sciences The rate of pre-registration of meta-analysis in psychology is low

181: Down the rabbit hole

Jun 03 2024 42 mins  
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/ekmdf Our

180: Consortium peer reviews

May 02 2024 50 mins  
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 pu