Everything Hertz

A podcast by scientists, for scientists. Methodology, scientific life, and bad language.

About the show

A podcast by scientists, for scientists. Methodology, scientific life, and bad language. Co-hosted by Dr. Dan Quintana (University of Oslo) and Dr. James Heathers (Northeastern University)

Everything Hertz on social media


  • 115: A modest proposal

    September 7th, 2020  |  1 hr 6 secs

    We discuss James' recent proposal that scientists should be paid for performing peer review for journals published by for-profit companies—$450, to be precise. Dan also puts forward three meta-science projects that he thinks are worth funding.

  • 114: Diversity in science (with Jess Wade)

    August 17th, 2020  |  53 mins 43 secs

    We chat with Jess Wade (Imperial College London) about diversity issues in science, including her work increasing the profile of underrepresented scientists on Wikipedia and on getting more young women into science.

  • 113: Citation needed

    August 3rd, 2020  |  53 mins 11 secs

    Dan and James discuss whether scientists should spend more time creating and editing Wikipedia articles. They also chat about how they read scientific articles and the heuristics they use to help decide whether a paper's worth their time

  • 112: Leaving academia

    July 27th, 2020  |  51 mins 7 secs

    Dan and James chat about James' new industry job, why he quit academia, the biggest differences between academia and industry, and why it's crucial for early career researchers to have a plan B.

  • 111: The cumulative advantage of academic capital (with Chris Jackson)

    July 6th, 2020  |  1 hr 26 secs

    We chat with Chris Jackson (Imperial College, London) about the "Matthew Effect" in academia, how we can improve work/balance, and whether we should stop citing shitty people.

  • 110: Red flags for errors in papers

    June 15th, 2020  |  46 mins 59 secs

    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?

  • 109: Open scientific publishing [Live episode]

    June 1st, 2020  |  51 mins 52 secs

    Dan and James recorded a live episode on open publishing as part of the Open Publishing Fest. They also ran a survey (from start to finish) during the course of the episode on the public's perception of open scientific publishing and discuss the results.

  • 108: Requiem for a Screen

    May 18th, 2020  |  47 mins 45 secs

    We discuss the recent claim that screen time is more harmful than heroin and whether psychological science is a crisis-ready discipline

  • 107: Memes, TikTok, and science communication (with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti)

    May 4th, 2020  |  1 hr 5 mins

    We chat with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti (Chapman University, USA) about the role of memes and emerging social media in communicating science and statistics.

  • 106: Science on the run

    April 20th, 2020  |  50 mins 12 secs

    Dan and James discuss whether getting rapid outcomes to address the pandemic is worth the increased risk of mistakes—how can scholars perform research that is both swift and accurate?

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

    April 6th, 2020  |  57 mins 45 secs

    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.

  • 104: Now we'll discover which meetings could've been emails

    March 16th, 2020  |  1 hr 3 mins

    Dan and James discuss the COVID-19 pandemic and how it's impacting academia

  • 103: Swiping right

    March 2nd, 2020  |  1 hr 17 mins

    Dan and James discuss rejection in academia and emerging science communication platforms

  • 102: Master of none

    February 17th, 2020  |  1 hr 4 mins

    Should research scientists build their knowledge and skillset broadly at the risk of being a master of none? Dan and James discuss this, along with a recent editorial on the use of Twitter in academia.

  • 101: Punishing research misconduct

    February 3rd, 2020  |  59 mins 15 secs

    Dan and James cover a new paper which discusses whether research misconduct should be criminalised. If so, where do we draw the line and who should investigate these cases?

  • 100: Hundredth episode live special (with Daniel Lakens, Amy Orben, and Chris Chambers)

    January 27th, 2020  |  1 hr 50 mins

    To celebrate our 100th episode, which we video-streamed live, Dan and James were joined by three special guests: Daniel Lakens, Amy Orben, and Chris Chambers.