105: Tell it like it is (with Marike Schiffer)

105: Tell it like it is (with Marike Schiffer)

We chat with Marike Schiffer, who is a Senior Editor at Nature Human Behavior, about her journal's push to increase reproducibility in the behavioral sciences. She also shares how her team evaluates manuscripts and some common misunderstandings about scientific publishing.

Here's what else we cover:

  • Marike's experiencing making the switch from researcher to full-time editorial work
  • The day-to-day tasks of an editor
  • The Manifesto for reproducible science
  • Why has Nature Human Behavior made such a big push towards reproducibility
  • The benefits of transparent peer review comments
  • The importance of posting rich datasets
  • Transparency in how journals deal with manuscripts
  • The Editorial describing how Nature Human Behavior deals with manuscripts
  • The future of scientific publishing
  • Audio versions of papers
  • Two common misunderstanding that scientists have about scientific publishing
  • Dan's synthetic data paper

Other links

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon 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, April 6) "105: Tell it like it is (with Marike Schiffer)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U9QRN, Retrieved from https://osf.io/u9qrn/

Special Guest: Marike Schiffer.

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