110: Red flags for errors in papers
Everything Hertz15 Juni 2020

110: Red flags for errors in papers

We answer a listener question on identifying red flags for errors in papers. Is there a way to better equip peer-reviewers for spotting errors and suspicious data? More details and links... We answer an audio question from Kim Mitchell (https://twitter.com/academicswrite). Submit your audio questions via our website (https://everythinghertz.com/audio-question) Nick Brown's blogpost (http://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2020/04/some-issues-in-recent-gaming-research.html) on the video game "study" We ran a live survey using Prolific! Go to prolific.com/everythinghertz to get $50 worth of credit for $1 Spotting unlikely data in meta-analysis How can make reviewers better at detecting errors in papers? Using a "Red team (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_team)" to pull apart your papers What do lay people think really happens in peer review? 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 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 one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes) Buy our merch from our online store (https://teespring.com/stores/everything-hertz-podcast)! We've got hats, mugs, hoodies, shirts + more https://vangogh.teespring.com/v3/image/MMTLZXJvOr6yzbqO5k5mdkmfFhY/480/560.jpg Cite this episode Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, June 15) "110: Red flags for errors in papers", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VTYNG

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
medicinvetarna
rss-experimentet
paranormalt-med-caroline-giertz
rss-odla
rss-spraket
dumforklarat
rss-geopodden-2
vetenskapsradion
bildningspodden
rss-tidsmaskinen