95: All good presentations are alike; each bad presentation is bad in its own way

95: All good presentations are alike; each bad presentation is bad in its own way

Dan and James discuss why academia tolerates bad presentations and the strange distrust of polished presentations. Here's what else they discuss... James had a Filipino feast https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/1188582859528949766?s=20 We’re approaching 100 episodes! ReproducibiliTea (https://osf.io/3qrj6/wiki/home/) is spreading worldwide! Why do some people not trust polished presentations? The Mike Morrison episode (https://everythinghertz.com/87) on the Better Poster The “I want a refund for a bad presentation” blog post (https://www.jratcliffe.net/post/i-want-a-refund-for-your-conference-presentation) What does James consider a ‘good’ presentation? Conference apps Why don’t we teach PhD students to do things that they’ll need further in their careers, like making presentations and writing emails? Vague emails James wants to help out an email spammer Email vs. Twitter DM Anonymous people on the internet James discovers coin collecting Blocking people on Twitter Dan’s got a show recommendation: Money Heist / Paper house (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6468322/) Why do we hate spoilers? Spoiling the end of a movie on Pompeii 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 or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes) Episode citation and permanent link

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