185: The Retraction

185: The Retraction

We discuss the recent retraction of a paper that reported the effects of rigour-enhancing practices on replicability. We also cover James' new estimate that 1 out of 7 scientific papers are fake. Links * The story (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02907-3) about data integrity concerns in 130 women’s health papers * James' new preprint (https://osf.io/23zcr) with the estimate that 1 out of 7 scientific papers are fake * The retracted paper in Nature Human Behavior (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01749-9) by Protzko and coworkers * The Matters Arising article (https://rdcu.be/dVXN8) from Bak-Coleman and Devezer, who initially raised concerns about the paper from Protzko and coworkers. * The Everything Hertz merch store (https://everything-hertz-podcast.creator-spring.com) * The paper (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0165551507086261) about puns/jokes in paper titles * The "Everything Hertz" paper (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2014.00177/full) from James * Dan's only paper (https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(15)00528-4/abstract) with a pun in the title Other links Everything Hertz on social media - 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/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Citation Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Oct 4). 185: The Retraction, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/528SF

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
tingenes-tilstand
rekommandert
liberal-halvtime
forskningno
sinnsyn
jss
rss-rekommandert
rss-nysgjerrige-norge
fjellsportpodden
vett-og-vitenskap-med-gaute-einevoll
villmarksliv
smart-forklart
kvinnehelsepodden
nordnorsk-historie
hva-er-greia-med
tidlose-historier
rss-inn-til-kjernen-med-sunniva-rose
nevropodden
aldring-og-helse-podden