63: Science journalism (with Brian Resnick)
Everything Hertz18 Juni 2018

63: Science journalism (with Brian Resnick)

Dan and James chat about science journalism with Brian Resnick (@b_resnick), who is a science reporter at Vox.com. Here’s what they cover: Should scientists be worried that their work will be misrepresented when talking to the media? [0:58] How Brian approaches science journalism [8:53] It’s ok to challenge the assumptions of science journalists [16:57] How do you write a great headline? [19:13] How does Brian appraise the quality of research? [29:50] Should psychiatrists (or journalists) diagnose the US President? [32:50] Stories in science that no one knows the answer to [36:58] How to promote your research without going via your institution’s media department [40:24] The best way to pitch your research to a science journalist [44:25] How pre-preprints are great for research addressing current events [48:45] How scientists can improve their science communication writing [53:15] Dick jokes in science writing — yes or no? [54:30] What has Brian changed his mind about? [56:37] Brian’s book recommendation [58:05] Links: Brian’s pieces at Vox - https://www.vox.com/authors/brian-resnick The twitter poll that Dan was referring to - https://twitter.com/kylejasmin/status/960065733551181824?lang=en The Weeds podcast episode on the Goldwater rule - https://art19.com/shows/the-weeds/episodes/72d4c65f-2d2a-4925-8bb6-7d6ca93cb561 Brian’s email - Brian@vox.com Brian on Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/b_resnick Books mentioned: We have no idea - https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-No-Idea-Universe/dp/0735211515 Does it fart? - https://www.amazon.com/Does-Fart-Definitive-Animal-Flatulence/dp/0316484156/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 Find us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/ Special Guest: Brian Resnick.

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 (https://...

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 (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 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/etojn...

30 Jan 202554min

Populärt inom Vetenskap

dumma-manniskor
p3-dystopia
svd-nyhetsartiklar
kapitalet-en-podd-om-ekonomi
allt-du-velat-veta
rss-ufo-bortom-rimligt-tvivel-2
rss-vetenskapsradion-2
rss-vetenskapsradion
det-morka-psyket
sexet
doden-hjarnan-kemisten
rss-spraket
rss-odla
paranormalt-med-caroline-giertz
dumforklarat
rss-experimentet
medicinvetarna
vetenskapsradion
rss-geopodden-2
bildningspodden