50: Special 50th episode (LIVE)
Everything Hertz14 Sep 2017

50: Special 50th episode (LIVE)

Dan and James celebrate their 50th episode with a live recording! They cover a blog post that argues grad students shouldn’t be publishing, what’s expected of today’s postdocs, and the ‘tone’ debate in psychology.

BONUS: You can also watch the video of this episode on the Everything Hertz podcast channel (link below)

Other stuff they cover:

  • James offends a sociologist, as is his wont
  • The argument for why grad students shouldn’t publish
  • Gatekeepers controlling what’s being published
  • Editors that Google authors before sending papers out for review
  • Judging researchers on their institution’s location
  • James on networking
  • How do you challenge reviewers when they say you are "too junior"
  • The standards of Frontiers papers
  • Writing review papers for the wrong reasons
  • Why are there so many meta-analyses?
  • Pre-registering your meta-analysis
  • Registered reports vs. pre-registration
  • What’s expected of today’s postdocs
  • How many papers should you peer review?
  • How James tried to ward off review requests
  • Things that millennials are ruining
  • The role of humour in the tone debate

Links
Episode video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj3WsTiUuLo&t=3s

The “should grad students publish" article: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/23/renewed-debate-over-whether-graduate-students-should-publish#.WaGAeN_v8jI.link

Prospero meta-analysis registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/

Eiko Fried’s tweet on postdoc expectations: https://twitter.com/eikofried/status/902470702892290048

James’ publons profile: https://publons.com/author/1171358/james-aj-heathers#profile

JANE: http://jane.biosemantics.org

Anonymous PubPeer comments: https://pubpeer.com/publications/0E0DAEBEC6183646F18F4FAED03B1A#7

Det här avsnittet är hämtat från ett öppet RSS-flöde och publiceras inte av Podme. Det kan innehålla reklam.

Avsnitt(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 Juli 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 from las...

3 Juni 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 The paper from Critic...

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 Mars 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/etoj...

30 Jan 202554min

Populärt inom Vetenskap

p3-dystopia
dumma-manniskor
allt-du-velat-veta
ufo-sverige
hacka-livet
bildningspodden
rss-vetenskapsradion
rss-ufobortom-rimligt-tvivel
det-morka-psyket
medicinvetarna
ufo-sverige-2
rss-vetenskapsradion-2
halsorevolutionen
dumforklarat
sexet
rss-kriminologerna
svd-nyhetsartiklar
vetenskapsradion
rss-odla
paranormalt-med-caroline-giertz