Episodes
-
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.
-
160: Whistleblowing
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
-
157: Limitations
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
-
152: Sorry Not Sorry
April 4th, 2022 | 55 mins 46 secs
James and Dan chat about apologies vs. non-apologies, how to decide when to call it quits on a paper, and governments vetoing research proposals recommended by their own funding agencies
-
151: The dirty dozen
March 21st, 2022 | 39 mins 53 secs
Dan and James discuss a new preprint that details twelve p-hacking strategies and simulates their impact on false-positive rates. They also discuss the Great Resignation in academia and the academic job market.
-
150: Why can't you do nothing?
February 28th, 2022 | 52 mins 33 secs
We discuss the latest paper to seriously use the Kardashian index, which is the discrepancy between a scientist's publication record and social media following and a listener question on whether original authors should get the last word when a comment on an article is submitted
-
149: Medical misinformation (with Rohin Francis)
February 14th, 2022 | 56 mins 48 secs
Dan and James chat with cardiologist Rohin Francis about medical misinformation and how he uses YouTube for science communication
-
148: Academic reference letters
January 31st, 2022 | 51 mins 47 secs
Dan and James chat about why academic reference letters are terrible, a recent position statement on preprints, and whether the "great resignation" is also happening in academia.