46: Statistical literacy (with Andy Field)
Everything Hertz23 Jun 2017

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 statistical literacy. Highlights: The story behind Andy’s new book SPSS and Bayesian statistics Andy explains why he thinks the biggest problem in science is statistical illiteracy Researcher degrees of freedom and p-hacking The story behind the the first version of ‘Discovering statistics’ How to improve your statistical literacy Does peer review improve the statistics of papers Researchers will draw different conclusions on the same dataset The American Statistical Association’s statement on p-values How has the teaching of statistics for psychology degrees changed over the years Andy fact checks his own Wikipedia page Andy’s thoughts on Bayesian statistics and how he applied it in a recent paper The peer review of new statistical methods Andy’s future textbook plans The rudeness of mailing lists/discussion forums What is something academia or stats-related that Andy believes that others think is crazy? The one book that Andy recommends that everyone should read We learn the crossover in James and Andy’s taste in metal bands Links Andy’s books: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/author/andy-field-0 The ‘PENIS of statistics’ lecture from Andy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe3_DeLC2JE Daniel Lakens’ Coursera course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences The American Statistical Association’s statement on p-values: http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 The refereeing decision paper: https://osf.io/gvm2z/ R stan: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rstan/index.html Statistical rethinking book: https://www.crcpress.com/Statistical-Rethinking-A-Bayesian-Course-with-Examples-in-R-and-Stan/McElreath/p/book/9781482253443 Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Andy Field.

Episoder(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 Jan 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 Nov 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 Aug 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 Jul 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 Jun 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 Apr 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 Mar 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 Jan 202554min

Populært innen Vitenskap

fastlegen
rekommandert
tingenes-tilstand
jss
sinnsyn
rss-rekommandert
liberal-halvtime
forskningno
tomprat-med-gunnar-tjomlid
fjellsportpodden
rss-nysgjerrige-norge
villmarksliv
kvinnehelsepodden
nordnorsk-historie
rss-paradigmepodden
smart-forklart
vett-og-vitenskap-med-gaute-einevoll
nevropodden
hva-er-greia-med
aldring-og-helse-podden