119: Rules of thumb

119: Rules of thumb

Dan and James discuss how rules of thumbs in science, such as those often applied to sample sizes and effect sizes, lead to mindless research evaluation. More info and links: Is there any justifcation for holding back the public posting of data becuase you're not done with your analyses We have a new episode partner, Scite (https://scite.ai/)! Scite helps researchers quickly see how a research paper has been cited and if it has been supported or disputed by subsequent research Get a 30% discount on a 12-month Premium Scite subscription. Use the coupon code: HERTZ (offer expires January 1, 2021) Lake Wobegon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon), were all the children are above average The tweet from Marco Altini (https://twitter.com/altini_marco/status/1321432168216858625) about his desk-rejected manuscript Sample size rules-of-thumb Effect size rules-of-thumb Dan's effect size distribution paper (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27914167/) (Here's the preprint (https://osf.io/5y55v/) if you don't have access to the paywalled version) We have a live episode scheduled for the 18 November (4pm CET) as part of the Munin Conference on Scholarly Publising (https://site.uit.no/muninconf/) 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: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show - $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Episode citation Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, November 2) "119: Rules of thumb", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UMXR7

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