110: Red flags for errors in papers

Episode 110 · June 15th, 2020 · 46 mins 59 secs

About this Episode

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.
  • Submit your audio questions via our website
  • Nick Brown's blogpost 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" to pull apart your papers
  • What do lay people think really happens in peer review?

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 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! We've got hats, mugs, hoodies, shirts + more

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

Support Everything Hertz

Episode Comments