56: Registered reports (with Chris Chambers)

56: Registered reports (with Chris Chambers)

Dan and James are joined by Chris Chambers (Cardiff University) to discuss the Registered Reports format. Here’s an overview of what they covered: What is a registered report and why should we implement them? [1:47] The impact of conscious and unconscious bias on scientific publication [6:17] Common objections to registered reports [8:21] The slippery slope fallacy [14:33] The advantages of registered reports for early career researchers [15:47] The generational divide for embracing methodological reforms [19:13] The launch of registered reports in 2013 [23:30] The “tone debate” in psychology [24:50] Dealing with publishing decisions as an early career researcher [27:30] Using registered reports to disarm your research rivals [30:52] A peek behind the curtain of peer-review [34:40] How do we convince journals to take up the registered report format? [36:28] Using registered reports for meta-analysis [38:40] What’s something that Chris has changed his mind about recently? [43:14] What’s Chris’ favourite failure? [48:23] Chris’ opinion of Wales [51:49] Links The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Deadly-Sins-Psychology-Scientific/dp/0691158908 Chris Chambers on Twitter @chrisdc77 Dorothy Bishop’s blog on how registered reports provides better control of the publication timeline http://deevybee.blogspot.no/2016/03/better-control-of-publication-time-line.html The Startup Scientist podcast https://shows.pippa.io/startupscientist Startup scientist on Twitter @Startup_sci The open science pyramid (slide 8) https://osf.io/yq59d/ The Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology “power posing” issue http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rrsp20/2/1?nav=tocList Dan on Twitter @dsquintana James on Twitter @JamesHeathers Music credits Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Chris Chambers.

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
rss-rekommandert
sinnsyn
forskningno
liberal-halvtime
rss-nysgjerrige-norge
fjellsportpodden
kvinnehelsepodden
tomprat-med-gunnar-tjomlid
nordnorsk-historie
vett-og-vitenskap-med-gaute-einevoll
villmarksliv
smart-forklart
rss-paradigmepodden
hva-er-greia-med
nevropodden
tidlose-historier