58: Lessons from podcasting (with Simine Vazire)

58: Lessons from podcasting (with Simine Vazire)

Dan and James are joined by Simine Vazire (University of California, Davis and co-host of the Black Goat podcast) to chat about the role of podcasting in scientific communication. Dan's wife also starts going into labor during the episode, so this is an extra special one - make sure you listen through the ENTIRE episode. Here's what the cover: Why Simine started podcasting The perils of being a "methodologist terrorist" researcher Why podcast when you could blog or tweet? Dan and James’ favourite things about podcasting The current role of blogs Navigating the public/private crossover of science communication How much do we censor our podcasts? Should Journal editors tweet and podcast in a personal capacity? Should early career researchers podcast? The costs of not speaking above your station What equipment does we use to record podcasts? Two vs. three podcast hosts? How do you know when you have a good podcast? What type of person is suited to podcasting? What book does Simine think everyone should read? What’s something Simine’s changed her mind about recently? Links Ed Vul Social neuroscience paper https://gate.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/wiki/whynhow/images/e/ef/Vuletalorigpaper.pdf Snowball ice microphone https://www.bluedesigns.com/products/snowball/ Black Goat podcast http://www.theblackgoatpodcast.com James’ advice for PhDs https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/12-thing-you-should-know-before-you-start-a-phd-9c064a979e8 Understanding Psychology as a Science https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/Understanding-Psychology-as-a-Science/?K=9780230542303 What is this thing called science? https://www.amazon.com/What-This-Thing-Called-Science/dp/162466038X/ref=dpobtitle_bk Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Simine Vazire.

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