Some journals use nominal manuscript submission fees to discourage frivolous submissions. However, it has been suggested that increasing submission fees could reduce article processing charges. Dan and James discuss this proposal, along with the recently released code of conduct for scientific integrity from the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. James’ Atlantic piece Submission fees for mansucripts The scholarly kitchen blog post We have a new partner: Paperpile! Our PeerJ episode with Jason...
Jun 07, 2021•49 min
Dan and James discuss how academia should operate in a post-pandemic world. What pandemic practices should we keep and what should we abandon? Links and details: Quiz: Norwegian metal band or Norwegian town? Things are slowly getting back to normal in some (but not alI) countries. So what academic practices and routines should we keep from the pandemic and what should we kiss goodbye? Would it be possible to be physically located at your local university but to be employed/educated at another un...
May 17, 2021•51 min
Dan and James answer listener audio questions on indirect costs for research grants, the mind/body problem, and why many academics aren't trained to teach. They also profess their love for the overhead projector Some more details: Should we require universities to justify overhead costs, like heating and electricity? Overheads can inflate the costs of grants, some grants provide an additional percentage for overheads but others don’t allow this, which can eat into grants Get to know the people i...
May 03, 2021•1 hr 3 min
Dan and James chat with Dorothy Bishop (University of Oxford) about the importance of normalizing the retraction of scientific papers, publication ethics, and whether paper mills (companies that make fake papers at scale) are an issue in the psychological sciences Here are some links and stuff we covered: Dorothy's thoughts on how the adoption of open science practices has been progressing since we last had her on the show in June 2018 The European Research Council's new open access journal, whi...
Apr 19, 2021•1 hr
Dan and James discuss the recently proposed "transparency audit", why it received so much blowback, and the characteristics of successful reform schemes The specifics... The computational research integrity conference The transparancy leaderboard proposed by Curate Science Our episode with Chris Jackson , that James mentioned What about a transparency leaderboard for instiutions? What are the characteristics of grassroots reform schemes that worked? Other links [Dan on twitter]( www.twitter.com/...
Apr 05, 2021•57 min
Dan and James chat about how they come up with new ideas, why everyone seems to be trying to monetise their hobbies, and why it's so hard for most labs to have a singular focus of research. We had some problems with James' mic so the quality of his audio wasn't up our usual standard. To make up for this we've added one of our older bonus episodes at the end of this conventional episode (this begins at 54:18). These bonus episodes are typically only made available for our Professor Fancypants Pat...
Mar 15, 2021•1 hr 11 min
We discuss when is the right time in your academic career to begin speaking up to critique your research field or whether the risk of retaliation means you should shut up and keep your head down. This was a recorded Clubhouse chat, which includes some audience interaction at the end. Links and details: Moin Syed's blogpost , which was the inspiration for this topic The 'proper' letter to the editor critique vs. a social media critique What about retaliation for speaking out? Differences between ...
Mar 01, 2021•51 min
We have a wide-ranging chat with Saloni Dattani (Kings College London and University of Hong Kong) about the benefits of dividing scientific labor, the magazine she co-founded (Works in Progress) that shares novel ideas and stories of progress, and fighting online misinformation Here are some links and other stuff we cover Follow Saloni on Twitter: https://twitter.com/salonium Why Saloni started the Works in Progress magazine [Overleaf](overleaf.com), for writing papers in LaTeX How science will...
Feb 15, 2021•52 min
Dan has a blue-sky proposal to increase data sharing—that funders mandate scholars to store and analyse data on their servers for which the funder decides what constitutes a reasonable data request (among other benefits) Other stuff covered: We return with part 2 of "overrated/underrated/appropately rated", in which James throws nouns at Dan and he responds with whether these things are overrated, underrated, or appropately rated. Joe Hilgard's blog post Dan' proposal that funders should require...
Feb 01, 2021•47 min
We discuss under which circumstances retracting decades-old articles is worth the time. We also chat about why LinkenIn is underrated (yes, really) and special journal issues are overrated. A more specific list of topics and links: We play a game of "overated/underated", in which Dan has a list of stuff that he asks James whether these things are overrated or underated (or appropiated rated) Why LinkedIn is underated Graphical abstracts are underrated Online conferences are underrated Authors sh...
Jan 18, 2021•51 min
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. Some more details: The pros and cons of collaborative peer review (in which all peer reviewers discuss the paper after all individual peer reviews have been submitted How techn...
Jan 04, 2021•54 min
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. Here what we cover and some links: How Michael co-founded PLOS The book Dan mentioned on the history of the scientific journal Why did eLife launch? What did it offer that other journals didn't? Nature's recently proposed $11k article processing fee proposal eLife's new " author-driven publish...
Dec 21, 2020•40 min
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. Here's what they cover and some links: Watch the video of this episode on the Everything Hertz YouTube page What is transparent peer-review? The permanancy of open peer review reports CLOCKSS provides a sustainable dark archive to ensure the long-term survival of Web-based scholarly conte...
Dec 07, 2020•58 min
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 Here's what they cover: Why should psychologist scientists learn about the philosophy of science? Cailin's new preprint on error propogation that she co-authrored Boyd and Richerson's " Culture and the Evolutionary Process" book Episode 91 with Kristin Sainani that discussed magnitude based inference Christie Aschwanden on Magnitude Based Inference ...
Nov 16, 2020•47 min
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. More info and links: Is there any justifcation for holding back the public posting of data becuase you're not done with your analyses We have a new episode partner, Scite ! Scite helps researchers quickly see how a research paper has been cited and if it has been supported or disputed by subsequent research Get a 30% discount on a 12-month Prem...
Nov 02, 2020•57 min
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. Other points and links: Send in your audio question at our website Listen to our episode with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti , on memes, TikTok, and science communication The worst peer reviewers we have received How do we respond to bad peer review comments The Research ...
Oct 19, 2020•1 hr 5 min
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...
Oct 05, 2020•1 hr 5 min
Dan and James chat about a recent twitter discussion on open science funding and the benefits of Editors sharing their opinions online. James also shares three project proposals that he thinks deserves funding, which Dan ranks. Other stuff... The Twitter thread from Tage Rai on conflicts of interest in funding on science The Raytheon Amphitheater at Northeastern University How Nature Human Behavior evaluates your mansucripts , from episode 105 . Good and bad experiences with Frontiers journals A...
Sep 21, 2020•1 hr 17 min
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. More details James' tweet proposing peer review should be compensated Since recording this episode, James has set up the @450Movement twitter account Also see James' blog post The Collabra Psychology journal Did the folks that co-authored the " redefine st...
Sep 07, 2020•1 hr
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. Here's what we cover: Jess' Wikipedia page Inferior , by Angela Saini What's involved when making a bio page? The "notability" criteria for adding a scientist's bio on wikipedia Listen to Wikipedia grow on Hatnote Don't write your own page, even under a psuedonym. What's the best way...
Aug 17, 2020•54 min
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. Here are some more details and links: Send in your audio questions here How does James read so much and what tips do Dan and James have for reading papers? The Stork paper recommendation service How James and Dan rapidly judge whether a paper is worth the time ...
Aug 03, 2020•53 min
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. James new industry job James' medium blog post Having a plan B (and plan C) in academia Using consulting a bridge to a full-time industry job How to get an industry job The role of grant success in academia More research is now open access than not Get 20% off our merch by using the promo code "AUGUST" I...
Jul 27, 2020•51 min
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. Here's more stuff we cover: Chris climbed the world's most dangerous volcano for a BBC show Chris' email signature Having a code of conduct for your lab Work/life balance in academia Are things worse in academia compared to other desk jobs? How Chris co-founded "EarthArxiv", a preprint server for the earth sciences The poi...
Jul 06, 2020•1 hr
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? More details and links... We answer an audio question from Kim Mitchell . Submit your audio questions via our website Nick Brown's blogpost on the video game "study" We ran a live survey using Prolific! Go to prolific.com/everythinghertz to get $50 worth of credit for $1 Spotting unlikely data in meta-analysis How can make reviewers b...
Jun 15, 2020•47 min
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. Here are more stuff they covered, plus links! The Open Publishing Fest We collected data LIVE thanks to Prolific! Go to prolific.co/everythinghertz to get $50 worth of credit for just $1 How to build a low cost book scanner A prepreprint reposit...
Jun 01, 2020•52 min
We discuss the recent claim that screen time is more harmful than heroin and whether psychological science is a crisis-ready discipline Other stuff we cover: Dan's adjustment to a second kid The " Psychological science is not yet a crisis ready discipline " preprint The Twitter thread from Rickard Carlsson There is a contimuum of evidence for psychological science's use in a crisis Belgian Officials: To Save Country's Potato Industry, Belgians Must Eat More Fries Our episode with Amy Orben Scree...
May 18, 2020•48 min
We chat with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti (Chapman University, USA) about the role of memes and emerging social media in communicating science and statistics. Stuff we cover + links: Why Chelsea uses memes and social media for science communication Chelsea's use of TikTok Chelsea's TikTok profile Chelsea's Instagram profile How much time should you spend on science communication vs. science research? What Twitch is and how this can be used by academics Chelsea's Twitch profile Dan's livestream of h...
May 04, 2020•1 hr 5 min
Dan and James discuss whether getting rapid outcomes to address the pandemic is worth the increased risk of mistakes—how can researchers perform research that is both urgent and accurate? Here's other stuff they discuss... Whiskey as a hobby James' pandemic tips How publication practices have changed during the pandemic The news article that stated bioRxiv papers are peer-reviewed Peer review during a pandemic The impact of the corona virus on employment in academia Bad peer-reviewed studies do ...
Apr 20, 2020•50 min
We chat with Marike Schiffer, who is a Senior Editor at Nature Human Behavior, about her journal's push to increase reproducibility in the behavioral sciences. She also shares how her team evaluates manuscripts and some common misunderstandings about scientific publishing. Here's what else we cover: Marike's experiencing making the switch from researcher to full-time editorial work The day-to-day tasks of an editor The Manifesto for reproducible science Why has Nature Human Behavior made such a ...
Apr 06, 2020•58 min
Dan and James discuss the COVID-19 pandemic and how it's impacting academia Other things they discuss: Roy and HG's gymnastics commentary from the Sydney 2000 olympics News tickers and collective anxiety How will cancelled talks and events influence our careers? Use the promo code "everythinghertz" to get $50 in free Prolific credit that you can use to recruit online participants for your next study, more details here Using ‘Second Life’ for conferences Tools for working from home "It’s just a c...
Mar 16, 2020•1 hr 3 min
