118 episodes

A podcast by scientists, for scientists. Methodology, scientific life, and bad language. Co-hosted by Dr. Dan Quintana (University of Oslo) and Dr. James Heathers (Northeastern University)

Everything Hertz Dan Quintana

    • Social Sciences
    • 4.6 • 27 Ratings

A podcast by scientists, for scientists. Methodology, scientific life, and bad language. Co-hosted by Dr. Dan Quintana (University of Oslo) and Dr. James Heathers (Northeastern University)

    118: Evidence-free gatekeeping

    118: Evidence-free gatekeeping

    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 Square preprint server
    The current state of preprints
    The 'readiness scale' paper at Nature Human Behavior
    How the prestige of one's institition affects how they are assessed
    The mathematician Grigori Perelman, who declined the Fields medal
    The Laboratory Life book
    Double-blinded peer-review


    Other links



    [Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
    [James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
    [Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
    [Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)


    Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)




    Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!



    $1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show


    - $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

    Episode citation


    Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, October 19) "118: Evidence-free gatekeeping", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/RAVXK
    Support Everything Hertz

    • 1 hr 4 min
    117: How we peer-review papers

    117: How we peer-review papers

    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 Mills, from Lancaster University, asks us how we review papers
    We review this paper: "Direct perception of other people’s heart rate"
    The tweet from Maarten van Smeeden on data simulation


    Other links



    [Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
    [James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
    [Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
    [Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)


    Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)




    Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!



    $1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show


    - $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

    Episode citation
    Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, October 5) "117: How we peer-review papers", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7JHFP
    Support Everything Hertz

    • 1 hr 4 min
    116: In my opinion

    116: In my opinion

    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 contract for getting paid for reviews
    Get access to our Patreon newsletter
    The peer-review process at eLife
    James' three grant proposal ideas
    The taxi story [Story in Norwegian but Google translate does a good enough job]
    PsycoPy
    The eyetracker that's 100x cheaper than commercial eyetrackers
    Ads in R package load up messages
    Chat about this episode on the Git Gud Science Discord server


    Other links



    [Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
    [James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
    [Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
    [Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)


    Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)




    Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!



    $1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show


    - $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

    Episode citation
    Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, September 21) "116: In my opinion", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/WT46Z
    Support Everything Hertz

    • 1 hr 17 min
    115: A modest proposal

    115: A modest proposal

    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 statistical sigificance" paper actually go on to follow their own recommendations?
    Would high financial compensation of people on job search panels lead to better quality hires?
    A tool that would automatically scrape the email addresses the of authors of papers you cite would make life easier for asking for feedback and providing review recommendations.
    I'm curious as to whether people are reading the show notes. If you are reading this and want a Hertz mug, the first person to send @hertzpodcast a tweet saying they read the show notes will get a free mug
    Kristoffer Magnusson's statstics art
    Join the Git Gud Science Discord by following this link: https://discord.gg/s8MN3gA


    Other links



    [Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
    [James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
    [Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
    [Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)


    Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)




    Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!



    $1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
    $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month


    - Save 16% on either tier if you pay annually!

    Episode citation
    Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, September 7) "115: A modest proposal", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/4ZQ2E
    Support Everything Hertz

    • 1 hr
    114: Diversity in science (with Jess Wade)

    114: Diversity in science (with Jess Wade)

    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 to get girls into science and engineering?
    The lack of diversity in science award winners
    Follow Jess on Twitter!
    The opportunuties provided by social media
    Using social media to scope out new labs


    Other links



    [Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
    [James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
    [Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
    [Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)


    Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)




    Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!



    $1 a month: 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show


    - $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month

    Episode citation
    Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, August 16) "114: Diversity in Science (with Jess Wade)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/A6VMU
    Special Guest: Jess Wade.
    Support Everything Hertz

    • 53 min
    113: Citation needed

    113: Citation needed

    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 to read
    The benefit of a memorable paper title
    Peer review forces you to read papers carefully
    James screens a few papers for further reading on the spot based on their titles
    What is the role of Wikipedia in science communication and education?
    Jess Wade's project advocating for better representation of female scientists on Wikipedia
    Wikipedia articles vs. textbooks
    Do we even need textbooks in psychology?
    The Biological Psychology wiki textbook is a ghost town
    Using the R bookdown package for online books


    Other links



    [Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
    [James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
    [Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
    [Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)


    Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)




    Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!



    $1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
    $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)




    Episode citation
    Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, August 3) "113: Citation needed", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3D6YJ
    Support Everything Hertz

    • 53 min

Customer Reviews

4.6 out of 5
27 Ratings

27 Ratings

Nsisnskd ,

Unprofessional and uninformed

Nairo Quintana's brother is great in this.

Biva lau ,

Great podcast

Good to hear scientists talking like actual people, too many science podcasts sound too much like conference discussions. Good work lads!

IMLahart ,

Two Aussies complaining about modern science, I’m in!

I was a bit late to the party, but over the last few months I’ve caught up with over 30 episodes. Love the classic good cop-Dan- bad cop-James- approach! Dan does well to allow James, one of the new bad people of science, the space to vent his frustrations about the state of science. Never short of an analogy or metaphor, James is refreshingly honest and you’re never left wondering “what does James really think”! Dan provides structure, occasional reason (views on meta-analysis especially!), and does a great job bringing James back from his entertaining but meandering tangents. The podcast covers all of the current issues in science: open science, p-values and p-hacking, effect sizes, reproducibility, authorship, work-life balance, publish or perish cultures, statistical inconsistencies, preregistering, and more. The hosts provide great advice about useful software for researchers, such as slack, authorea, and R. For anyone who thinks there are no problems with science this podcast is not for you; for everyone else, this podcast is most certainly for you!

Top Podcasts In Social Sciences

Listeners Also Subscribed To