Episode Archive
179 episodes of Everything Hertz since the first episode, which aired on March 2nd, 2016.
-
51: Preprints (with Jessica Polka)
October 6th, 2017 | 56 mins 14 secs
In this episode, Dan and James are joined by Jessica Polka, Director of ASAPbio, to chat about preprints
-
50: Special 50th episode (LIVE)
September 14th, 2017 | 1 hr 39 mins
Dan and James celebrate their 50th episode with a live recording! They cover a blog post that argues grad students shouldn’t be publishing, what’s expected of today’s postdocs, and the ‘tone’ debate in psychology. You can also watch the video of this episode on the Everything Hertz YouTube channel (link in show notes)
-
49: War and p's
July 31st, 2017 | 55 mins 59 secs
Dan and James discuss a forthcoming paper that's causing a bit of a stir by proposing that biobehavioral scientists should use a 0.005 p-value statistical significance threshold instead of 0.05.
-
48: Breaking up with the impact factor (with Jason Hoyt)
July 21st, 2017 | 53 mins 57 secs
Dan and James are joined by Jason Hoyt, who is the CEO and co-founder of PeerJ, an open access journal for the biological and medical sciences
-
47: Truth bombs from a methodological freedom fighter (with Anne Scheel)
July 7th, 2017 | 1 hr 9 mins
In this episode, Dan and James are joined by Anne Scheel (LMU Munich) to discuss open science advocacy
-
46: Statistical literacy (with Andy Field)
June 23rd, 2017 | 1 hr 19 mins
In this episode, Dan and James are joined by Andy Field (University of Sussex), author of the “Discovering Statistics” textbook series, to chat about statistical literacy
-
45: Conferences and conspiracy theories
June 2nd, 2017 | 1 hr 1 min
It’s conference season so in this episode Dan and James discuss the ins and outs of scientific conferences
-
44: Who’s afraid of the New Bad People? (with Nick Brown)
May 19th, 2017 | 1 hr 8 mins
James and Dan are joined by Nick Brown (University of Groningen) to discuss how the New Bad People—also known as shameless little bullies, vigilantes, the self-appointed data police, angry nothings, scientific McCarthyites, second-stringers, whiners, the Stasi, destructo-critics, and wackaloons—are trying to improve science
-
43: Death, taxes, and publication bias in meta-analysis (with Daniel Lakens)
May 5th, 2017 | 1 hr 2 mins
Daniel Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology) joins James and Dan to talk meta-analysis
-
42: Some of my best friends are Bayesians (with Daniel Lakens)
April 21st, 2017 | 1 hr 7 mins
Daniel Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology) drops in to talk statistical inference with James and Dan
-
41: Objecting to published research (with William Gunn)
April 7th, 2017 | 1 hr 7 mins
In this episode, Dan and James are joined by William Gunn (Director of Scholarly communications at Elsevier) to discuss ways in which you can object to published research
-
40: Meta-research (with Michèle Nuijten)
March 24th, 2017 | 49 mins 18 secs
Dan and James are joined by Michèle Nuijten (Tilburg University) to discuss 'statcheck', an algorithm that automatically scans papers for statistical tests, recomputes p-values, and flags inconsistencies
-
39: Academic hipsters
March 10th, 2017 | 54 mins 49 secs
In this episode, James and Dan discuss academic hipsters. These are people who insist you need to use specific tools in your science like R, python, and LaTeX. So should you start using these trendy tools despite the steep learning curve?
-
38: Work/life balance - Part 2
February 24th, 2017 | 1 hr 2 mins
Dan and James continue their discussion on work/life balance in academia. They also suggest ways to get your work done within a sane amount of hours as well as how to pick the right lab
-
37: Work/life balance in academia
February 17th, 2017 | 56 mins 30 secs
In this episode, we talk work/life balance for early career researchers. Do you need to work a 70-hour week to be a successful scientist or can you actually have a life outside the lab?
-
36: Statistical inconsistencies in published research
January 27th, 2017 | 50 mins 40 secs
In episode 34 we covered a blog post that highlighted questionable analytical approaches in psychology. That post mentioned four studies that resulted from this approach, which a team of researchers took a closer look into. Dan and James discuss the statistical inconsistencies that the authors reported in a recent preprint.