117: How we peer-review papers
Everything Hertz5 Loka 2020

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 should be paid for performing peer reviews for journals published by for-profit companies Specific links and topics: An update on the 450 movement (https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/the-450-movement-1f86132a29bd), which proposes that scientists should be paid for performing peer reviews for journals published by for-profit companies You should follow Overly Honest Editor (https://twitter.com/Edit0r_At_Large) on Twitter The Volkswagen fellowships (https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/en/funding/our-funding-portfolio-at-a-glance/freigeist-fellowships) Emma Mills (http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/people/emma-mills(edc1db6a-ca34-4086-b16f-95dd24534887).html), from Lancaster University, asks us how we review papers We review this paper: "Direct perception of other people’s heart rate (https://psyarxiv.com/7f9pq)" The tweet from Maarten van Smeeden (https://twitter.com/MaartenvSmeden/status/1310210069779316737?s=20) on data simulation 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: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show - $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Episode citation Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, October 5) "117: How we peer-review papers", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7JHFP

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