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


  • 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.

  • 99: Science advocacy

    January 6th, 2020  |  49 mins 36 secs

    Dan and James answer a listener question on science advocacy. Is this an activity that all scientists should do, and if so, how much advocacy work should we be doing?

  • 98: Episode titles are redundant, at best (with Sophia Crüwell)

    December 16th, 2019  |  59 mins 28 secs

    We chat with Sophia Crüwell (Meta-Research Innovation Center Berlin) about pre-registration and her recent work introducing pre-registration templates for cognitive modelling research.

  • 97: Slow science

    December 2nd, 2019  |  1 hr 44 secs

    Dan and James discuss the concept of "slow science", which has been proposed in order to improve the quality of scientific research and create a more sustainable work environment.

  • 96: The chaotic state of doctoral research

    November 18th, 2019  |  47 mins 49 secs

    Dan and James discuss the results of this year's Nature survey of PhD students. Despite a majority of students reporting general satisfaction with their decision to undertake a PhD, many described a sense of uncertainty, harassment in the lab, and gruelling work hours.

  • 95: All good presentations are alike; each bad presentation is bad in its own way

    November 4th, 2019  |  1 hr 3 mins

    Dan and James discuss why academia tolerates bad presentations and the strange distrust of polished presentations.