About this Episode
Dan and James choose a preprint and walk through how they would peer-review it. James also provides an update on his recent proposal that scientists should be paid for performing peer reviews for journals published by for-profit companies
Specific links and topics:
- An update on the 450 movement, which proposes that scientists should be paid for performing peer reviews for journals published by for-profit companies
- You should follow Overly Honest Editor on Twitter
- The Volkswagen fellowships
- Emma Mills, from Lancaster University, asks us how we review papers
- We review this paper: "Direct perception of other people’s heart rate"
- The tweet from Maarten van Smeeden on data simulation
Other links
- [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
Episode citation
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, October 5) "117: How we peer-review papers", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7JHFP