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?
- [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 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
Prolific helps researchers find research participants on demand, with a pool of 75,000 active participants in North America and Europe.
Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz