

Everything Hertz
Dan Quintana
Methodology, scientific life, and bad language. Co-hosted by Dr. Dan Quintana (University of Oslo) and Dr. James Heathers (Cipher Skin)
Episodes
Mentioned books

13 snips
Nov 10, 2025 • 44min
194: Author verification
We discuss whether preprint servers and journals should require author identity verification for submitting manuscripts. This would probably speed up the submission process, but is this worth the potential downsides? We also discuss the similarities and differences between academia and professional sports and a weird case of author identity theft.
Other links
The BJKS podcast https://bjks.buzzsprout.com
Social media links
Dan on Bluesky
James on Bluesky
Everything Hertz on Bluesky
Support Everything Hertz

Aug 7, 2025 • 59min
193: The pop-up journal
Dan and James chat about a a new 'pop-up journal' concept for addressing specific research questions. They also answer a listener question from a journal grammar editor and discuss a new PNAS article on paper mills
Links
The pop-up journal
The episode where Dan's wife went into labor
The PNAS paper mill paper
A blog post from the PNAS paper lead author, Reese Richardson.
The Nature piece on the paper
Social media links
Dan on Bluesky
James on Bluesky
Everything Hertz on Bluesky
Citation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, August 7). 193: The pop-up journal, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/2ZMQ7Support Everything Hertz

Jul 1, 2025 • 48min
192: Outsourcing in academia
Dan and James answer listener questions on outsourcing in academia and differences in research culture between academic institutions and commercial institutions.
Social media links
Dan on Bluesky
James on Bluesky
Everything Hertz on Bluesky
Citation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, July 1). 192: Outsourcing in academia, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3MC2RSupport Everything Hertz

7 snips
Jun 3, 2025 • 48min
191: Cleaning up contaminated medical treatment guidelines
James and Dan discuss James' newly funded 'Medical Evidence Project', whose goal is to find questionable medical evidence that is contaminating treatment guidelines.
Links
James' blog post from last year
The carthorse child blog post
The blog post announcing the project
A write up in Nature about the project
Other links
Dan on Bluesky
James on Bluesky
Everything Hertz on Bluesky
Citation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, June 4). 191: Cleaning up contaminated medical treatment guidelines Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/537BNSupport Everything Hertz

Apr 2, 2025 • 44min
190: What happens when you pay reviewers?
We chat about two new studies that took different approaches for evaluating the impact of paying reviewers on peer review speed and quality.
Links
James' 450 movement proposal
The paper from Critical Care Medicine
The preprint from Biology Open
Other links
Dan on Bluesky
James on Bluesky
Everything Hertz on Bluesky
Citation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, April 2). 190: What happens when you pay reviewers?, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/PHQ2KSupport Everything Hertz

Mar 2, 2025 • 54min
189: Crit me baby, one more time
Dan and James discuss a recent piece that proposes a post-publication review process, which is triggered by citation counts. They also cover how an almetrics trigger could be alternatively used for a more immediate post-publication critique.
Links
The Chonicle piece by Andrew Gelman and Andrew King [Free to read with email registration]
The paper by Peder Isager and collegues on how to decide what papers we should replicate. Here is the preprint.
The ERROR project
Other links
Everything Hertz on Bluesky
Dan on Bluesky
James on Bluesky
Everything Hertz on Bluesky
Citation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, Mar 2). 189: Crit me baby, one more time, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3X5URSupport Everything Hertz

Jan 30, 2025 • 55min
188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity
Dan and James discuss a recent editorial which argues that double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity.
Links
The editorial from Christopher Mebane: https://doi.org/10.1093/etojnl/vgae046
Other links
Everything Hertz on Bluesky
Dan on Bluesky
James on Bluesky
Everything Hertz on Bluesky
Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!
$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month
Citation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, Jan 30). Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6XS29Support Everything Hertz

20 snips
Dec 3, 2024 • 55min
187: What started the replication crisis era?
The podcast dives into the bittersweet world of elite scientific organizations, highlighting the absurdity of prestige versus integrity. Recent events spark a discussion about the resignation of a notable member and the ethos of honor in academia. The origins of the replication crisis in psychology are dissected, revealing key moments that challenged research reliability. Additionally, ethical dilemmas in experimental neurosurgery and the skepticism towards tech demonstrations add depth to their critique of contemporary scientific practices.

20 snips
Nov 13, 2024 • 43min
186: Evaluating journal quality
Explore a Nordic framework for assessing journal quality, focusing on the importance of credible evaluation methods. Dive into the complexities and potential pitfalls of popular academic publishers, while gaining valuable tips for undergraduates on discernment in journal selection. Enjoy a quirky quiz that humorously contrasts journal titles with random objects and reminisce on personal journeys through the academic landscape. The hosts reflect on the evolution of their views towards research credibility, combining insightful discussion with lighthearted banter.

16 snips
Oct 4, 2024 • 1h 9min
185: The Retraction
We discuss the recent retraction of a paper that reported the effects of rigour-enhancing practices on replicability. We also cover James' new estimate that 1 out of 7 scientific papers are fake.
Links
The story about data integrity concerns in 130 women’s health papers
James' new preprint with the estimate that 1 out of 7 scientific papers are fake
The retracted paper in Nature Human Behavior by Protzko and coworkers
The Matters Arising article from Bak-Coleman and Devezer, who initially raised concerns about the paper from Protzko and coworkers.
The Everything Hertz merch store
The paper about puns/jokes in paper titles
The "Everything Hertz" paper from James
Dan's only paper with a pun in the title
Other links
Everything Hertz on social media
Dan on twitter
James on twitter
Everything Hertz on twitter
Everything Hertz on Facebook
Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!
$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month
Citation
Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Oct 4). 185: The Retraction, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/528SFSupport Everything Hertz


