68:  Friends don’t let friends believe in impact factors (with Nathan Hall)

68: Friends don’t let friends believe in impact factors (with Nathan Hall)

This episode includes part two of a chat with Nathan Hall (McGill University), who is the person behind the ’Shit academics say’ account (@AcademicsSay), which pokes fun of all the weird stuff that academics say. Before getting to the discussion, James and Dan answer two listener questions on grants and data cleaning. Here’s what is covered in the episode: People talk about papers all the time, but the grant process is not discussed openly—why? Speaking to your funding body’s relevant program officer Assembling a team that complements your weaknesses Data carpentry and the tidyverse Outlier analysis Nathan Hall on big publishing Upending the publication system by getting journals to bid for papers Using peer review quality to judge the quality of journals Debunking learning styes Academics chasing after celebrity and hype The cost of chasing academic prestige Using twitter hashtags like #PhDChat and #ECRchat to learn more about the experiences of other people Links Data carpentry https://datacarpentry.org/ The paper with detailed code https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03811-x The podcast conference https://www.soundeducation.fm/ Cern and comic sans https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/4/3136652/cern-scientists-comic-sans-higgs-boson Shit Academics Say on twitter https://www.twitter.com/AcademicsSay Nathan on Twitter https://www.twitter.com/prof_nch Dan on twitter https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana James on twitter https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers Everything Hertz on twitter https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast Everything Hertz on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/ Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Nathan Hall.

Episoder(195)

179: Discovery vs. maintenance

179: Discovery vs. maintenance

Dan and James discuss how scientific research often neglects the importance of maintenance and long-term access for scientific tools and resources. Other things they cover: Should there be an annual l...

3 Apr 202448min

178: Alerting researchers about retractions

178: Alerting researchers about retractions

Dan and James discuss the Retractobot service, which emails authors about papers they've cited that have been retracted. What should authors do if they discover a paper they've cited has been retracte...

29 Feb 202449min

177: Plagiarism

177: Plagiarism

We discuss two recent plagiarism cases, one you've probably heard about and another that you probably haven't heard about if you're outside Norway. We also chat about the parallels between plagiarism ...

31 Jan 202442min

176: Tracking academic workloads

176: Tracking academic workloads

We chat about a paper on the invisible workload of open science and why academics are so bad at tracking their workloads. This episode was originally recorded in May 2023 in a hotel room just before o...

29 Des 202336min

175: Defending against the scientific dark arts

175: Defending against the scientific dark arts

We chat about a recent blogpost from Dorothy Bishop, in which she proposes a Master course that will provide training in fraud detection—what should such a course specifically teach and where would th...

7 Des 202338min

174: Smug missionaries with test tubes

174: Smug missionaries with test tubes

James proposes proposes a new type of consortium paper that could provide collaborative opportunities for researchers from countries that are underrepresented in published research papers. We also tal...

1 Nov 202353min

173: How do science journalists evaluate psychology papers?

173: How do science journalists evaluate psychology papers?

Dan and James discuss a recent paper that investigated how science journalists evaluate psychology papers. To answer this question, the researchers presented science journalists with fictitious psycho...

1 Okt 202335min

172: In defence of the discussion section

172: In defence of the discussion section

Dan and James discuss a recent proposal to do away with discussion sections and suggest other stuff they'd like to get rid of from academic publishing. Links * The paper (https://doi.org/10.1007/s1122...

31 Aug 202335min

Populært innen Vitenskap

fastlegen
tingenes-tilstand
jss
rekommandert
forskningno
sinnsyn
tomprat-med-gunnar-tjomlid
villmarksliv
rss-paradigmepodden
rss-nysgjerrige-norge
liberal-halvtime
nevropodden
fjellsportpodden
kvinnehelsepodden
diagnose
tidlose-historier
rss-inn-til-kjernen-med-sunniva-rose
psykopoden
nordnorsk-historie
rss-hoyt-lavt-med-ida-tonseth