106: Science on the run

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 more damage than bad preprints Preprints that require permission for citation Is there a need for the rapid dissemination of psych research, at the risk of making errors? Hertz merchandise 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 and permanent link Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, April 20) "106: Science on the Run)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], Retrieved from https://osf.io/7ydvz/