Dan and James discuss two listener questions on performing secondary data analysis and the potential for prestige to creep into open science reforms.
More info and links:
- Why generate your own dataset when you can get a high impact paper using public data?
- Thanks to Stu Murray for the question
- Will people steal your ideas?
- The journal Scientific Data
- Are we now incentivising data mining rather than data collecting?
- Synthetic data
- Dan’s recent synthetic data preprint primer
- Ego and prestige got us into the mess we’re trying to fix with open science, but how can we stop this from happening again?
- Thanks to Robin Kok for the question, listen to our episode with him on e-health!
- Did all the people who co-authored the paper to change statistical significance the default p-value threshold to .005 actually do this in subsequent papers?
- Vagus nerve brain washing paper
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). (2019, August 19) "Mo data mo problems", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/TQ75J