106: Science on the run
Everything Hertz20 Huhti 2020

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 research that is both urgent and accurate? Here's other stuff they discuss... Whiskey as a hobby James' pandemic tips How publication practices have changed during the pandemic The news article (https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/sarscov2-virus-able-to-survive-in-60c-temperatures/news-story/20421e370f8e10f675ee296e92928de2) that stated bioRxiv papers are peer-reviewed Peer review during a pandemic The impact of the corona virus on employment in academia Bad peer-reviewed studies do more damage than bad preprints Preprints that require permission for citation Is there a need for the rapid dissemination of psych research, at the risk of making errors? Hertz merchandise (https://teespring.com/en-GB/stores/everything-hertz-podcast) Other links - Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes) Episode citation and permanent link Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, April 20) "106: Science on the Run)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], Retrieved from https://osf.io/7ydvz/

Jaksot(195)

195: Living meta-analysis

195: Living meta-analysis

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 ...

14 Tammi 37min

194: Author verification

194: Author verification

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 pote...

10 Marras 202544min

193: The pop-up journal

193: The pop-up journal

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 ...

7 Elo 202559min

192: Outsourcing in academia

192: Outsourcing in academia

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 (...

1 Heinä 202547min

191: Cleaning up contaminated medical treatment guidelines

191: Cleaning up contaminated medical treatment guidelines

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 (https://...

3 Kesä 202548min

190: What happens when you pay reviewers?

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. Links * James' 450 movement proposal (https://jamesheathers...

2 Huhti 202544min

189: Crit me baby, one more time

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 almetrics trigger could be alternatively used for a ...

2 Maalis 202553min

188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity

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. Links * The editorial from Christopher Mebane: https://doi.org/10.1093/etojn...

30 Tammi 202554min

Suosittua kategoriassa Tiede

tiedekulma-podcast
rss-mita-tulisi-tietaa
rss-poliisin-mieli
rss-duodecim-lehti
docemilia
mielipaivakirja
filocast-filosofian-perusteet
rss-metsantuntijat-podcast
rss-ylistys-elaimille
university-of-eastern-finland
utelias-mieli
radio-antro
rss-bios-podcast
rss-ranskaa-raakana
rss-astetta-parempi-elama-podcast
rss-tiedetta-vai-tarinaa
rss-luontopodi-samuel-glassar-tutkii-luonnon-ihmeita
rss-lihavuudesta-podcast
rss-sosiopodi