April 27th, 2023 | 48 mins 26 secs
Dan and James discuss a new paper that reviews potential issues in metascience practices. They also talk about their upcoming live show in May in Frankfurt.
167: Diluted effect sizes
March 16th, 2023 | 43 mins 39 secs
Dan and James chat about a new study that uses homeopathy studies to evaluate bias in biomedical research, a new-ish type of authorship fraud, and the potential for Chat GPT peer-review.
166: Is science becoming less disruptive over time?
January 25th, 2023 | 52 mins 12 secs
Dan and James discuss a recent paper that claims that science is becoming less disruptive over time and the suggested causes for this decline.
December 30th, 2022 | 41 mins 18 secs
Dan and James chat about self-promotion in academia, how they both wish they had doctoral defences (these aren't a thing in Australia), and replacing error bars with the letter "t".
164: The great migration
November 28th, 2022 | 49 mins
James and Dan discuss the recent migration of scientists from Twitter to Mastodon and the pros and cons of sharing the prior submission history of manuscripts
163: eLife's new peer review model
November 7th, 2022 | 54 mins 44 secs
Dan and James discuss eLife's new peer review model, in which they no longer make accept/reject decisions at the end of the peer-review process. Instead, papers invited for peer review will receive an assessment from eLife and the peer reviews will be shared on eLife's website. It's up to author if they would like revise their manuscript or publish their paper as the version of record.
162: Status bias in peer review
October 17th, 2022 | 50 mins 43 secs
We chat about a recent preprint describing an experiment on the role of author status in peer-review, dodgy conference proceedings journals, and authorships for sale
161: The memo (with Brian Nosek)
September 12th, 2022 | 47 mins 58 secs
Dan and James are joined by Brian Nosek (Co-founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science) to discuss the recent White House Office of Science Technology & Policy memo ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research. They also cover the implications of this memo for scientific publishing, as well as the mechanics of culture change in science.
August 31st, 2022 | 50 mins 40 secs
Dan and James share ten rules for whistleblowing academic misconduct.
159: Peer review isn't working (with Saloni Dattani)
August 15th, 2022 | 51 mins 35 secs
Dan and James are joined by Saloni Dattani for a chat about the history of peer review, a reimagination of what peer review could look like, what happens when you actually pay peer reviewers, peer reviewer specialisation, post publication peer review, annual paper limits for authors, automation in peer review, and Big Cheese.
158: Word limits
August 1st, 2022 | 45 mins 11 secs
By popular demand, Dan and James chat about journal word and page limits. They also the debate around a recent meta-analysis on nudge interventions
July 11th, 2022 | 46 mins 46 secs
Dan and James discuss a new preprint that examined the types of limitations authors discuss in their published articles and whether these limitation types has changed over the past decade, especially in light of methodological reform efforts.
156: Looking for seeders
June 21st, 2022 | 50 mins 57 secs
Dan and James discuss a recent paper that concluded (again) that most researchers aren't compliant with their published data sharing statement and whether torrents (remember them?) are a viable alternative for sharing large datasets.
155: Don't you know who I am?
May 30th, 2022 | 46 mins 20 secs
We chat about appeals to authority when responding to scientific critique, university ranking systems, Goodhart’s law (and its origin), and private institutional review boards.
154: When the evidence is constructed around the narrative
May 9th, 2022 | 51 mins 14 secs
We chat about the Theranos story and the parallels with academic research, as well as Twitter's new owner and whether academics will actually leave the platform
153: Shame shame shame
April 18th, 2022 | 47 mins 19 secs
We discuss a journal's new "wall of shame" page, which details unethical behaviours in an effort to discourage future misconduct. We also cover scientific ideas that won't die (but one idea that HAS died), and ECNP's "negative data" prize