Everything Hertz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Open access articles have democratized the availability of scientific research, but are author-paid publication fees undermining the quality of science? The preprint by Morgan and Smaldino - https://osf.io/preprints/osf/3ez9v Paul Smaldino's text book - Modeling social behavior Main edisode takeaways (AI-assisted summary) There is a wide variability in the quality of papers published in gold open access journals and a wide variate of open access journals, some of which prioritise quality research Diamond open access and green open access are alternative models to consider. The publishing industry needs more transparency and mandatory reporting of data. The pressure to publish more can lead to a crowding out problem and a focus on quantity over quality. Determining the quality of journals and papers is challenging, and there are varying levels of quality within different tiers of journals. Fraudulent publishing practices, such as paper mills and fake papers, can be facilitated by the market for publishing. The Publons service (R.I.P) and similar platforms can improve the transparency of peer review and provide a record of reviewers' contributions. Society journals may offer a better publishing model as they have a reputation to maintain and are less likely to prioritize quantity over quality. 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, Sept 5). 184: A race to the bottom, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3MUJVSupport Everything Hertz