13. Joe Hilgard: Scientific fraud, reporting errors, and effects that are too big to be true episode artwork

EPISODE · Mar 19, 2021 · 1H 28M

13. Joe Hilgard: Scientific fraud, reporting errors, and effects that are too big to be true

from BJKS Podcast

Joe Hilgard is Assistant Professor of Social Psychology at Illinois State University. In this conversation, we discuss his work on detecting and reporting scientific fraud. BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith. New conversations every other Friday. You can find the podcast on all podcasting platforms (e.g., Spotify, Apple/Google Podcasts, etc.).Timestamps0:00:05: Are we only catching the dumb fraudsters?0:08:45: Why does Joe always sign his peer reviews?0:11:51: Detecting errors during peer review0:17:44: Retractions motivated by Joe's work0:22:19: The whole Zhang affair0:49:19: Ben found errors in a paper. Joe advises what to do next1:04:06: How to separate negligible errors from serious errors that require action1:11:37: When effects are too big to be truePodcast linksWebsite: https://bjks.buzzsprout.com/Twitter: https://twitter.com/BjksPodcastJoe's linksWebsite: http://crystalprisonzone.blogspot.com/Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=FPOHtgQAAAAJTwitter: https://twitter.com/JoeHilgardBen's linksWebsite: www.bjks.page/Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=-nWNfvcAAAAJReferencesBrown, N. J., & Heathers, J. A. (2017). The GRIM test: A simple technique detects numerous anomalies in the reporting of results in psychology. Social Psychological and Personality Science.Callaway, E. (2011). Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities. Nature News.Friston, K. (2012). Ten ironic rules for non-statistical reviewers. Neuroimage.Heathers, J. A., Anaya, J., van der Zee, T., & Brown, N. J. (2018). Recovering data from summary statistics: Sample parameter reconstruction via iterative techniques (SPRITE) . PeerJ Preprints.Hilgard, Joe's blog post about the Zhang affair: http://crystalprisonzone.blogspot.com/2021/01/i-tried-to-report-scientific-misconduct.htmlHilgard, J. (2021). Maximal positive controls: A method for estimating the largest plausible effect size. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.Hilgard, J. (2019). Comment on Yoon and Vargas (2014): An implausibly large effect from implausibly invariant data. Psychological Science.Lakens, Daniel: blog post on hungry judges: http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2017/07/impossibly-hungry-judges.htmlMorey, R. D., Chambers, C. D., ... & Zwaan, R. A. (2016). The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative. Royal Society Open Science.O'Grady: Write up in Science Magazine about the Zhang affair: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6531/767Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2013). Life after p-hacking. In Meeting of the society for personality and social psychology, New Orleans, LA.Simmons, J. What do true findings look like: Presentation slides available at https://osf.io/93fkq/Stapel's autobiography freely available in English: http://nick.brown.free.fr/stapelYong, E. (2012). The data detective. Nature News.

Episode metadata supplied by the publisher feed · Published Mar 19, 2021

Embed this episode

Joe Hilgard is Assistant Professor of Social Psychology at Illinois State University. In this conversation, we discuss his work on detecting and reporting scientific fraud. BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith. New conversations every other Friday. You can find the podcast on all podcasting platforms (e.g., Spotify, Apple/Google Podcasts, etc.). Timestamps 0:00:05: Are we only catching the dumb fra...

Distinct summary based on available episode metadata or transcript content.

Ready to play

13. Joe Hilgard: Scientific fraud, reporting errors, and effects that are too big to be true

0:00 1:28:14

No transcript for this episode yet

We transcribe on demand. Request one and we'll notify you when it's ready — usually under 10 minutes.

No similar episodes found.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is this episode of BJKS Podcast?

This episode is 1 hour and 28 minutes long.

When was this BJKS Podcast episode published?

This episode was published on March 19, 2021.

Is there a transcript available for this episode?

Yes, a full transcript is available for this episode. You can read the complete transcript on the episode page.

Can I download this BJKS Podcast episode?

Yes. Use the download control on the episode player to save the publisher-provided media file.
URL copied to clipboard!