Everything Hertz cover art

All Episodes

Everything Hertz — 195 episodes

#
Title
1

195: Living meta-analysis

2

194: Author verification

3

193: The pop-up journal

4

192: Outsourcing in academia

5

191: Cleaning up contaminated medical treatment guidelines

6

190: What happens when you pay reviewers?

7

189: Crit me baby, one more time

8

188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity

9

187: What started the replication crisis era?

10

186: Evaluating journal quality

11

185: The Retraction

12

184: A race to the bottom

13

183: Too beautiful to be true

14

182: What practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields?

15

181: Down the rabbit hole

16

180: Consortium peer reviews

17

179: Discovery vs. maintenance

18

178: Alerting researchers about retractions

19

177: Plagiarism

20

176: Tracking academic workloads

21

175: Defending against the scientific dark arts

22

174: Smug missionaries with test tubes

23

173: How do science journalists evaluate psychology papers?

24

172: In defence of the discussion section

25

171: The easiest person to fool is yourself (with Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris)

26

170: Holy sheet

27

169: Using big data to understand behavior (Live episode with Sandra Matz)

28

168: Meta-meta-science

29

167: Diluted effect sizes

30

166: Is science becoming less disruptive over time?

31

165: Self-promotion

32

164: The great migration

33

163: eLife's new peer review model

34

162: Status bias in peer review

35

161: The memo (with Brian Nosek)

36

160: Whistleblowing

37

159: Peer review isn't working (with Saloni Dattani)

38

158: Word limits

39

157: Limitations

40

156: Looking for seeders

41

155: Don't you know who I am?

42

154: When the evidence is constructed around the narrative

43

153: Shame shame shame

44

152: Sorry Not Sorry

45

151: The dirty dozen

46

150: Why can't you do nothing?

47

149: Medical misinformation (with Rohin Francis)

48

148: Academic reference letters

49

147: The $7000 golden ticket

50

146: Skills pay bills

51

145: Our boat is sinking slightly slower

52

144: The role of luck in academia

53

143: A little less conversation, a little more action

54

142: Red flags in academia [Live episode]

55

141: Why we should diversify study samples (with Sakshi Ghai)

56

140: You can’t buy cat biscuits with ‘thank you’ emails

57

139: Open science from a funder's perspective (with Ashley Farley)

58

138: Preprints in the time of coronavirus (with Michele Avissar-Whiting)

59

137: Ten rules for improving academic work-life balance

60

136: Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewed journals?

61

135: A loss of confidence

62

134: Paywalled questionnaires

63

133: Manuscript submission fees

64

132: Post-pandemic academia

65

131: Long live the overhead projector!

66

130: Normalizing retractions (with Dorothy Bishop)

67

129: Transparency audits

68

128: How do you generate new research ideas?

69

127: Speak up or shut up?

70

126: The division of scientific labor (with Saloni Dattani)

71

125: Upon reasonable request

72

124: From Ptolemy to Takeshi's Castle

73

123: Authenticated anonymity (with Michael Eisen)

74

122: Reoptimizing scientific publishing for the internet age (with Michael Eisen)

75

121: Transparent peer review

76

120: How false beliefs spread in science (with Cailin O'Connor)

77

119: Rules of thumb

78

118: Evidence-free gatekeeping

79

117: How we peer-review papers

80

116: In my opinion

81

115: A modest proposal

82

114: Diversity in science (with Jess Wade)

83

113: Citation needed

84

112: Leaving academia

85

111: The cumulative advantage of academic capital (with Chris Jackson)

86

110: Red flags for errors in papers

87

109: Open scientific publishing [Live episode]

88

108: Requiem for a Screen

89

107: Memes, TikTok, and science communication (with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti)

90

106: Science on the run

91

105: Tell it like it is (with Marike Schiffer)

92

104: Now we'll discover which meetings could've been emails

93

103: Swiping right

94

102: Master of none

95

101: Punishing research misconduct

96

100: Hundredth episode live special (with Daniel Lakens, Amy Orben, and Chris Chambers)

97

99: Science advocacy

98

98: Episode titles are redundant, at best (with Sophia Crüwell)

99

97: Slow science

100

96: The chaotic state of doctoral research

101

95: All good presentations are alike; each bad presentation is bad in its own way

102

94: Predicting the replicability of research

103

93: Double-blind peer review vs. open science

104

92: Chaos in the brickyard

105

91: Shifting the goalposts in statistics (with Kristin Sainani)

106

90: Mo data mo problems

107

89: Conflicts of interest in psychology (with Tom Chivers)

108

88: The pomodoro episode

109

87: Improving the scientific poster (with Mike Morrison)

110

86: Should I stay or should I go?

111

85: GWAS big teeth you have, grandmother (with Kevin Mitchell)

112

84: A GPS in the Garden of Forking Paths (with Amy Orben)

113

83: Back to our dirty unwashed roots

114

82: More janitors and fewer architects

115

81: Too Young To Know, Too Old To Care

116

80: Cites are not endorsements (with Sean Rife)

117

79: Clinical trial reporting (with Henry Drysdale)

118

78: Large-scale collaborative science (with Lisa DeBruine)

119

77: Promiscuous expertise

120

76: Open peer review

121

75: Overlay journals (with Daniele Marinazzo)

122

74: Seeing double (with Elisabeth Bik)

123

73: Update your damn syllabus

124

72: Anonymity in scientific publishing

125

71: Moving for your job

126

70: Doubling-blinding dog balls

127

69: Open science tools (with Brian Nosek)

128

68: Friends don’t let friends believe in impact factors (with Nathan Hall)

129

67: Shit Academics Say (with Nathan Hall)

130

66: Ideal worlds vs grim truths

131

65: Blockchain and open science (with Jon Brock)

132

64: Salami slicing

133

63: Science journalism (with Brian Resnick)

134

62: Adopting open science practices (with Dorothy Bishop)

135

61: Performance enhancing thugs (with Greg Nuckols)

136

60: This is more of a comment than a question

137

59: Rethinking the scientific journal (with Rickard Carlsson)

138

58: Lessons from podcasting (with Simine Vazire)

139

57: Radical Transparency (with Rebecca Willén)

140

56: Registered reports (with Chris Chambers)

141

55: The proposal to redefine clinical trials

142

54: Cuckoo Science

143

53: Skin in the game

144

52: Give p's a chance (with Daniel Lakens)

145

51: Preprints (with Jessica Polka)

146

50: Special 50th episode (LIVE)

147

49: War and p's

148

48: Breaking up with the impact factor (with Jason Hoyt)

149

47: Truth bombs from a methodological freedom fighter (with Anne Scheel)

150

46: Statistical literacy (with Andy Field)

151

45: Conferences and conspiracy theories

152

44: Who’s afraid of the New Bad People? (with Nick Brown)

153

43: Death, taxes, and publication bias in meta-analysis (with Daniel Lakens)

154

42: Some of my best friends are Bayesians (with Daniel Lakens)

155

41: Objecting to published research (with William Gunn)

156

40: Meta-research (with Michèle Nuijten)

157

39: Academic hipsters

158

38: Work/life balance - Part 2

159

37: Work/life balance in academia

160

36: Statistical inconsistencies in published research

161

35: A manifesto for reproducible science

162

34: E-health (with Robin Kok)

163

33: Zombie theories

164

32: Can worrying about getting sick make you sicker?

165

31: Discover your psychiatric risk with this one weird trick

166

30: Authorship

167

29: Learning new skills

168

28: Positive developments in biomedical science

169

27: Complaints and grievances

170

26: Interpreting effect sizes

171

25: Misunderstanding p-values

172

24: Incentive structures in science

173

23: Serious academics

174

22: Pokemon and public health

175

21: This is your brain on steroids

176

20: Sample sizes in psychology studies

177

19: Let us spray: oxytocin and spirituality

178

18: Data sharing

179

17: Journals: Do we need them?

180

16: What makes a good psych study?

181

15: Software and coding

182

14: Science communication

183

13: Academic horror stories

184

12: Reporting heart rate variability studies

185

11: The placebo effect

186

10: Failure

187

9: What happens if your research is wrong?

188

8: The PhD to Postdoc transition

189

Episode 7: 7: The writing process

190

6: The research pipeline - getting from idea to publication

191

5: Do you even replicate?

192

4: Meta-analysis or mega-silliness?

193

3: Scientific publishing

194

2: Nutrition and Psychiatry

195

1: So you want to measure heart rate variability...