Everything Hertz

Methodology, scientific life, and bad language.

About the show

Methodology, scientific life, and bad language. Co-hosted by Dr. Dan Quintana (University of Oslo) and Dr. James Heathers (Cipher Skin)

Everything Hertz on social media


  • 177: Plagiarism

    January 31st, 2024  |  42 mins 52 secs

    We discuss two recent plagiarism cases, one you've probably heard about and another that you probably haven't heard about if you're outside Norway. We also chat about the parallels between plagiarism and sports doping—would people reconsider academic dishonesty if they were reminded that future technology may catch them out?

  • 176: Tracking academic workloads

    December 29th, 2023  |  36 mins 12 secs

    We chat about a paper on the invisible workload of open science and why academics are so bad at tracking their workloads

  • 175: Defending against the scientific dark arts

    December 7th, 2023  |  38 mins 10 secs

    We chat about a recent blogpost from Dorothy Bishop, in which she proposes a Master course that will provide training in fraud detection—what should such a course specifically teach and where would these people work to apply their training? We also discuss whether open science is a cult that has trouble seeing outward.

  • 174: Smug missionaries with test tubes

    November 1st, 2023  |  53 mins 21 secs

    James proposes a new type of consortium paper that could provide collaborative opportunities for researchers from countries that are underrepresented in published research papers

  • 173: How do science journalists evaluate psychology papers?

    October 1st, 2023  |  35 mins 7 secs

    Dan and James discuss a recent paper that investigated how science journalists evaluate psychology papers. To answer this question, the researchers presented science journalists with fictitious psychology studies and manipulated sample size, sample representativeness, p-values, and institutional prestige

  • 172: In defence of the discussion section

    August 31st, 2023  |  35 mins 36 secs

    Dan and James discuss a recent proposal to do away with discussion sections and suggest other stuff they'd like to get rid of from academic publishing

  • 171: The easiest person to fool is yourself (with Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris)

    July 20th, 2023  |  55 mins 42 secs

    We chat with Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris about the science of cons and how we can we can avoid being taken in. We also cover the fate of the gorilla suit from the 'invisible gorilla' study, why scientists are especially prone to being fooled, plus more!

  • 170: Holy sheet

    June 23rd, 2023  |  50 mins 32 secs

    We discuss evidence of data tampering in a series of experiments investigating dishonesty revealed via excel spreadsheet metadata and how traditional peer review is not suited for the detection of data tampering.

  • 169: Using big data to understand behavior (Live episode with Sandra Matz)

    May 31st, 2023  |  43 mins 44 secs

    In our first ever live and in-person episode, we chat with Sandra Matz about the opportunities and challenges for using big data to understand human behavior

  • 168: Meta-meta-science

    April 27th, 2023  |  48 mins 26 secs

    Dan and James discuss a new paper that reviews potential issues in metascience practices. They also talk about their upcoming live show in May in Frankfurt.

  • 167: Diluted effect sizes

    March 16th, 2023  |  43 mins 39 secs

    Dan and James chat about a new study that uses homeopathy studies to evaluate bias in biomedical research, a new-ish type of authorship fraud, and the potential for Chat GPT peer-review.

  • 166: Is science becoming less disruptive over time?

    January 25th, 2023  |  52 mins 12 secs

    Dan and James discuss a recent paper that claims that science is becoming less disruptive over time and the suggested causes for this decline.

  • 165: Self-promotion

    December 30th, 2022  |  41 mins 18 secs

    Dan and James chat about self-promotion in academia, how they both wish they had doctoral defences (these aren't a thing in Australia), and replacing error bars with the letter "t".

  • 164: The great migration

    November 28th, 2022  |  49 mins

    James and Dan discuss the recent migration of scientists from Twitter to Mastodon and the pros and cons of sharing the prior submission history of manuscripts

  • 163: eLife's new peer review model

    November 7th, 2022  |  54 mins 44 secs

    Dan and James discuss eLife's new peer review model, in which they no longer make accept/reject decisions at the end of the peer-review process. Instead, papers invited for peer review will receive an assessment from eLife and the peer reviews will be shared on eLife's website. It's up to author if they would like revise their manuscript or publish their paper as the version of record.

  • 162: Status bias in peer review

    October 17th, 2022  |  50 mins 43 secs

    We chat about a recent preprint describing an experiment on the role of author status in peer-review, dodgy conference proceedings journals, and authorships for sale