Everything Hertz

123: Authenticated anonymity (with Michael Eisen)

January 4th, 2021 | 53 mins 49 secs

Part two of our chat with Michael Eisen (eLife Editor-in-Cheif), in which we discuss the pros and cons of collaborative peer review, journal submission interfaces, Michael's take on James' proposal that peer reviewers should be paid $450 dollars, why negative comments on peer reviews need to be normalised, plus much more.

122: Reoptimizing scientific publishing for the internet age (with Michael Eisen)

December 21st, 2020 | 40 mins 4 secs

The internet should have transformed science publishing, but it didn't. We chat with Michael Eisen (Editor-in-Chief of eLife) about reoptimizing scientific publishing and peer review for the internet age

121: Transparent peer review

December 7th, 2020 | 57 mins 35 secs

Dan and James discuss the pros and cons of transparent peer-review, in which peer review reports are published alongside manuscripts, as a keynote feature at the recent Munin Conference on scholarly publishing.

120: How false beliefs spread in science (with Cailin O'Connor)

November 16th, 2020 | 47 mins 26 secs

Dan and James chat with Cailin O'Connor (University of California, Irvine) about the how false beliefs spread in science and remedies for this issue

119: Rules of thumb

November 2nd, 2020 | 56 mins 46 secs

Dan and James discuss how rules of thumbs in science, such as those often applied to sample sizes and effect sizes, lead to mindless research evaluation

118: Evidence-free gatekeeping

October 19th, 2020 | 1 hr 4 mins

Dan and James answer audio listener questions on the worst review comments they've received (and how the responded), their thoughts on the current state of preprints, and how institutional prestige influences researcher evaluations.

117: How we peer-review papers

October 5th, 2020 | 1 hr 4 mins

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

116: In my opinion

September 21st, 2020 | 1 hr 17 mins

Dan and James chat about a recent twitter discussion on open science funding and the benefits of Editors sharing their opinions online. James also outlines three project proposals that he thinks deserves funding, which Dan ranks.

115: A modest proposal

September 7th, 2020 | 1 hr 6 secs

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.

114: Diversity in science (with Jess Wade)

August 17th, 2020 | 53 mins 43 secs

We chat with Jess Wade (Imperial College London) about diversity issues in science, including her work increasing the profile of underrepresented scientists on Wikipedia and on getting more young women into science.

113: Citation needed

August 3rd, 2020 | 53 mins 11 secs

Dan and James discuss whether scientists should spend more time creating and editing Wikipedia articles. They also chat about how they read scientific articles and the heuristics they use to help decide whether a paper's worth their time

112: Leaving academia

July 27th, 2020 | 51 mins 7 secs

Dan and James chat about James' new industry job, why he quit academia, the biggest differences between academia and industry, and why it's crucial for early career researchers to have a plan B.

111: The cumulative advantage of academic capital (with Chris Jackson)

July 6th, 2020 | 1 hr 26 secs

We chat with Chris Jackson (Imperial College, London) about the "Matthew Effect" in academia, how we can improve work/balance, and whether we should stop citing shitty people.

110: Red flags for errors in papers

June 15th, 2020 | 46 mins 59 secs

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?

109: Open scientific publishing [Live episode]

June 1st, 2020 | 51 mins 52 secs

Dan and James recorded a live episode on open publishing as part of the Open Publishing Fest. They also ran a survey (from start to finish) during the course of the episode on the public's perception of open scientific publishing and discuss the results.

108: Requiem for a Screen

May 18th, 2020 | 47 mins 45 secs

We discuss the recent claim that screen time is more harmful than heroin and whether psychological science is a crisis-ready discipline

Episode Archive