Everything Hertz

Dan and James chat with Jon Brock (Cognitive scientist at Frankl) about the use of blockchain technology for open science. Here's what they cover: What is the blockchain? Why Jon made the jump from academia to Frankl A cryptocurrency for open science What do institutional review boards think about using blockchain for data collection and storage? Autism heterogeneity How will this approach scale to biological signals and genetics data? What’s something that Jon’s changed him mind about in regards to academia? Links Frankl https://frankl.io Five reasons Frankl has a token https://medium.com/franklopenscience/why-does-frankl-need-a-frankl-token-4129d718ab74 Bjoern Brembs blog post http://bjoern.brembs.net/2018/05/after-24-years-when-will-academic-culture-finally-shift/ An explainer on cryptographic hashes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function#Illustration Frankl in a nutshell https://medium.com/franklopenscience/frankl-in-a-nutshell-9b488c554dea Frankl for autism https://medium.com/franklopenscience/frankl-for-autism-e74f0108bf5a Rethinking Innateness https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/rethinking-innateness Jon on Twitter twitter.com/DrBrocktagon Dan on Twitter twitter.com/dsquintana James on Twitter twitter.com/jamesheathers Everything Hertz on Twitter twitter.com/hertzpodcast Everything Hertz on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Special Guest: Jon Brock.Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James talk about the recent SIPS conference answer a listener question on "salami slicing" the outcomes from one study into multiple papers. Here's what they cover: What is the SIPS conference? [0:24] A SIPS proposal for Google scholar to highlight commentaries and replication attempts on specific articles [15:42] James and Dan’s favourite Hertz episodes [20:43] We answer a listener question on Salami slicing [28:45] Can you publish too much? [48:10] Links SIPS conference: https://www.improvingpsych.org/SIPS2018/ Reproducibilitea podcast: https://soundcloud.com/reproducibilitea Salami slicing tweet: https://twitter.com/academicswrite/status/1008719899940786176 Cumulative impact factors: http://khakhalin.blogspot.com/2012/11/cumulative-impact-factor-benchmarking.html A working document from SIPS on making replications discoverable (including Google scholar) https://osf.io/57zxa/ Find us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast www.twitter.com/dsquintana www.twitter.com/jamesheathers Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James chat about science journalism with Brian Resnick (@b_resnick), who is a science reporter at Vox.com. Here’s what they cover: Should scientists be worried that their work will be misrepresented when talking to the media? [0:58] How Brian approaches science journalism [8:53] It’s ok to challenge the assumptions of science journalists [16:57] How do you write a great headline? [19:13] How does Brian appraise the quality of research? [29:50] Should psychiatrists (or journalists) diagnose the US President? [32:50] Stories in science that no one knows the answer to [36:58] How to promote your research without going via your institution’s media department [40:24] The best way to pitch your research to a science journalist [44:25] How pre-preprints are great for research addressing current events [48:45] How scientists can improve their science communication writing [53:15] Dick jokes in science writing — yes or no? [54:30] What has Brian changed his mind about? [56:37] Brian’s book recommendation [58:05] Links: Brian’s pieces at Vox - https://www.vox.com/authors/brian-resnick The twitter poll that Dan was referring to - https://twitter.com/kylejasmin/status/960065733551181824?lang=en The Weeds podcast episode on the Goldwater rule - https://art19.com/shows/the-weeds/episodes/72d4c65f-2d2a-4925-8bb6-7d6ca93cb561 Brian’s email - Brian@vox.com Brian on Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/b_resnick Books mentioned: We have no idea - https://www.amazon.com/We-Have-No-Idea-Universe/dp/0735211515 Does it fart? - https://www.amazon.com/Does-Fart-Definitive-Animal-Flatulence/dp/0316484156/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 Find us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Special Guest: Brian Resnick.Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James chat about the adoption of open science practices with Dorothy Bishop, Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology at the University of Oxford. Here are some highlights from the show: Why Dorothy starting adopting open science practices Forking paths of analysis Dorothy’s experience with her first registered report Issues around data deposition When someone finds an error in your data What happens when a senior researcher is using questionable research practices? What to do when you’re caught doing something wrong Detecting errors in other papers The potential for open data to be weaponised How error detection is interpersonally difficult Carving out time for non-work pursuits The benefits of writing fiction when you're a scientist Using video for science communication James Heathers: Cat dealer Promoting your research vs. promoting yourself Dorothy’s book recommendation Links Dan Gilbert’s paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1037.2 Merchants of doubt [book]: https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942 Dorothy's blog: deevybee.blogspot.com Dorothy's crime novels: https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_ebooks_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Deevy+Bishop&search-alias=digital-text&text=Deevy+Bishop&sort=relevancerank Dorothy on Twitter: twitter.com/deevybee Find us on Twitter twitter.com/hertzpodcast twitter.com/dsquintana twitter.com/jamesheathers Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Special Guest: Dorothy Bishop.Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James chat with Greg Nuckols, who is grad student in exercise physiology, strength coach, and writer at strongerbyscience.com What they cover in this episode: Why Greg blogs his papers before preprints How Greg combines his business with his grad study Getting your research to your audience without publishing in scientific journals The limitations of traditional publishing Addressing popular misconceptions in research Are questionable research practices as bad in sports science as they are in psychology? Being an “academic outsider” can be tough, but it has some advantages The work that goes into exercise physiology studies How practical are multilab research projects in sports science? Exercise “experts” on Instagram Using Instagram to disseminate research Greg’s go-to resources for learning about open science What Greg’s changed his mind about How Greg’s planning on funding his future research without grants Links Scihub - whereisscihub.now.sh Greg on Twitter - twitter.com/GregNuckols Greg's website and newsletter - https://www.strongerbyscience.com Stronger by Science on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/strongerbyscience/ Chris Beardsly on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/chrisabeardsley/ Data colada - http://datacolada.org Slatestar codex - http://slatestarcodex.com Jordan Anaya's blog - https://medium.com/@OmnesRes SportRXiv - http://sportrxiv.org Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Special Guest: Greg Nuckols.Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James answer listener questions on academic conferences, getting abreast of the literature, and conflicts of interest. Here are more details of what's on this episode: How question times during conference seminars are useless Choosing which conferences to attend as a PhD student Feedback from our Registered Reports episode with Chris Chambers (Episode 56) People that have binged our entire back catalogue The amount of reading do you need to do to keep track of the field you work in PhD students need time to make time to read the literature People sending out half-arsed work hoping that peer-review will “fix it” Guest authorship When you’re a native English speaker and get asked to have your manuscript proofed by a native English speaker Is it a conflict of interest to a review a paper with that includes someone you’ve co-authored with in the past on a different topic? The Frontiers journal model Reviewing papers so that authors are actually grateful for your criticism Links Nuzzle: http://nuzzel.com Pocket: https://getpocket.com Mendeley: http://mendeley.com Find us on Twitter: twitter.com/hertzpodcast twitter.com/dsquintana twitter.com/jamesheathers Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Support Everything Hertz

Despite cosmetic changes, scientific journals haven't changed that much over the past few decades. So what if we were to completely rethink how a scientific journal should operate in today's environment? Dan and James are joined by Rickard Carlsson (Linnaeus University, Sweden), who is the Co-Editor of the new "Meta-Psychology" journal. Here's what they cover: Why start a new psychology journal? What’s new about this journal? How does the journal have no subscription fees and no article processing fees? How does a new journal increase its profile? The difficulties in publishing negative results The limits of study pre-registration Are data archiving requirements unrealistic? Open polices and the Swedish constitution How can we make data anonymous? What’s the hardest thing about starting a journal? What would success look like for this new journal? What has Rickard changed his mind about recently? What’s one book or paper that Rickard thinks everyone should read Links The Daniel Lakens blog post on JPSP (The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) http://daniellakens.blogspot.no/2018/03/the-journal-of-personality-and-social.html Statistical rethinking book http://xcelab.net/rm/statistical-rethinking/ Psych methods Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/853552931365745/ Twitter handles Everything Hertz - @hertzpodcast Rickard - @RickCarlsson Dan - @dsquintana James - @JamesHeathers Music credits - Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Special Guest: Rickard Carlsson.Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James are joined by Simine Vazire (University of California, Davis and co-host of the Black Goat podcast) to chat about the role of podcasting in scientific communication. Dan's wife also starts going into labor during the episode, so this is an extra special one - make sure you listen through the ENTIRE episode. Here's what the cover: Why Simine started podcasting The perils of being a "methodologist terrorist" researcher Why podcast when you could blog or tweet? Dan and James’ favourite things about podcasting The current role of blogs Navigating the public/private crossover of science communication How much do we censor our podcasts? Should Journal editors tweet and podcast in a personal capacity? Should early career researchers podcast? The costs of not speaking above your station What equipment does we use to record podcasts? Two vs. three podcast hosts? How do you know when you have a good podcast? What type of person is suited to podcasting? What book does Simine think everyone should read? What’s something Simine’s changed her mind about recently? Links Ed Vul Social neuroscience paper https://gate.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/wiki/whynhow/images/e/ef/Vul_et_al_orig_paper.pdf Snowball ice microphone https://www.bluedesigns.com/products/snowball/ Black Goat podcast http://www.theblackgoatpodcast.com James’ advice for PhDs https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/12-thing-you-should-know-before-you-start-a-phd-9c064a979e8 Understanding Psychology as a Science https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/Understanding-Psychology-as-a-Science/?K=9780230542303 What is this thing called science? https://www.amazon.com/What-This-Thing-Called-Science/dp/162466038X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Special Guest: Simine Vazire.Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James are joined by Rebecca Willén (Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education) to discuss transparency in scientific research and how she started her own independent research institute in Bali. Here's what they cover: Rebecca explains the story behind her practice of sharing disclosure statements for her published work Many people are changing their research practices for the better for current research - but what about their past research? The 21 word solution Using disclosure statements in your pHD The state of research openness in forensic psychology The flexibility in determining a primary outcome How and why Rebecca founded the IGDORE research institute The drawbacks to starting your own research institute Rebecca’s recommendation for getting started with open science The story behind the RONIN institute Links - IGDORE https://igdore.org Rebecca’s website https://rmwillen.info 21 word solution https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2160588 PNAS article questioning whether there’s a reporducability crisis http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/08/1708272114 IGDORE Open Science meetup https://igdore.org/open-science-meetup-bali-2018/ IGDORE affiliation https://igdore.org/affiliation/ RONIN institute http://ronininstitute.org XKCD theme for R http://xkcd.r-forge.r-project.org GNU manifesto https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html Twitter: @hertzpodcast, @dsquintana, @jamesheathers, and @rmwillen Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Special Guest: Rebecca Willén.Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James are joined by Chris Chambers (Cardiff University) to discuss the Registered Reports format. Here’s an overview of what they covered: What is a registered report and why should we implement them? [1:47] The impact of conscious and unconscious bias on scientific publication [6:17] Common objections to registered reports [8:21] The slippery slope fallacy [14:33] The advantages of registered reports for early career researchers [15:47] The generational divide for embracing methodological reforms [19:13] The launch of registered reports in 2013 [23:30] The “tone debate” in psychology [24:50] Dealing with publishing decisions as an early career researcher [27:30] Using registered reports to disarm your research rivals [30:52] A peek behind the curtain of peer-review [34:40] How do we convince journals to take up the registered report format? [36:28] Using registered reports for meta-analysis [38:40] What’s something that Chris has changed his mind about recently? [43:14] What’s Chris’ favourite failure? [48:23] Chris’ opinion of Wales [51:49] Links The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Deadly-Sins-Psychology-Scientific/dp/0691158908 Chris Chambers on Twitter @chrisdc77 Dorothy Bishop’s blog on how registered reports provides better control of the publication timeline http://deevybee.blogspot.no/2016/03/better-control-of-publication-time-line.html The Startup Scientist podcast https://shows.pippa.io/startupscientist Startup scientist on Twitter @Startup_sci The open science pyramid (slide 8) https://osf.io/yq59d/ The Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology “power posing” issue http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rrsp20/2/1?nav=tocList Dan on Twitter @dsquintana James on Twitter @JamesHeathers Music credits Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Special Guest: Chris Chambers.Support Everything Hertz