About this Episode
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.
- James' tweet proposing peer review should be compensated
- Since recording this episode, James has set up the @450Movement twitter account
- Also see James' blog post
- The Collabra Psychology journal
- Did the folks that co-authored the "redefine statistical sigificance" paper actually go on to follow their own recommendations?
- Would high financial compensation of people on job search panels lead to better quality hires?
- A tool that would automatically scrape the email addresses the of authors of papers you cite would make life easier for asking for feedback and providing review recommendations.
- I'm curious as to whether people are reading the show notes. If you are reading this and want a Hertz mug, the first person to send @hertzpodcast a tweet saying they read the show notes will get a free mug
- Kristoffer Magnusson's statstics art
- Join the Git Gud Science Discord by following this link: https://discord.gg/s8MN3gA
- [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: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and 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 episode every month
- Save 16% on either tier if you pay annually!
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, September 7) "115: A modest proposal", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/4ZQ2E