102: Master of none
Everything Hertz17 Feb 2020

102: Master of none

Should research scientists build their knowledge and skillset broadly at the risk of being a master of none? Dan and James discuss this, along with a recent editorial on the use of Twitter in academia. Here's other stuff they cover: * Some tools that Dan's using right now: BioRender (https://biorender.com/), Canva (https://www.canva.com/), Slack (https://slack.com/), 99designs (https://99designs.com/), and Notion (https://www.notion.so/). * Dan pre-registers a prediction * Herchandise! Use the code "EH102" to get a 20% discount on Hertz merchandise (https://teespring.com/stores/everything-hertz-podcast) (valid until March 2, 2020) * The k-index editorial (https://casereports.onlinejacc.org/content/early/2020/01/31/j.jaccas.2020.01.003) * Roger Ebert's statue (https://time.com/76577/roger-ebert-statue-illinois/) * James wanted a picture of this fish in the show notes, for some reason https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Napoleon_Fish_by_Gustavo_Gerdel.jpg 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 Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, February 17) "Master of none", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3A9TN, Retrieved from https://osf.io/3a9tn/

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
fjellsportpodden
rss-nysgjerrige-norge
kvinnehelsepodden
nordnorsk-historie
villmarksliv
vett-og-vitenskap-med-gaute-einevoll
hva-er-greia-med
smart-forklart
nevropodden
tidlose-historier
aldring-og-helse-podden
rss-radium