Everything Hertz

In this episode, Dan and James discuss the US National Institutes of Health's new definition of a “clinical trial”, which comes into effect on the 25th of January. Here’s the new definition: “A research study in which one or more human subjects are prospectively assigned to one or more interventions (which may include placebo or other control) to evaluate the effects of those interventions on health-related biomedical or behavioural outcomes”. Over the course of this episode, they cover the pros and cons of this decision along with the implications for researchers and science in general. Here are a few things they cover: The traditional definition of a clinical trial We go through James’ old work to determine if he’s been a clinical trialist all along The lack of clarity surrounding the new definition Why are adopting a clinical trial approach when this approach has obvious weaknesses? What do you actually have to do when running a clinical trial? Will institutions also adopt this new definition, thus putting basic research through clinical trial IRBs? What if this extra red tape actually improves science? One argument against the proposal is that registering more studies on clinicaltrials.gov will confuse the public. We don’t buy that. Clinical trial registrations generally miss the many nuances of study design The new clinical trial definition will eliminate some of the ‘forking paths’ when analysing and reporting data How this new definition will affect grant applications for early career researchers? What happens to exploratory research? NIH case studies of what may constitute a clinical trial Links NIH clinical trial definition https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/definition.htm The NIH “clinical trial decision tree” https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/CT-decision-tree.pdf NIH case studies of what may constitute a clinical trial https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/case-studies.htm#case1Support Everything Hertz

In this episode, James sits in the guest chair as Dan interviews him on his recent work find and exposing inconsistent results in the scientific literature. Stuff they cover: How James got into finding and exposing inconsistent results The critiques of James’ critiques How James would do things differently, if he were start over again? Separating nefarious motives from sloppiness The indirect victims of sloppy science Grants that fund sloppy science take resources from responsible science projects If people actually posted their data and methods, James’ job would be much easier Registered reports improve the quality of science If James could show one slide to every introductory psychology lecture what would it say? The one thing James believes that others think is crazy What James has changed his mind about in the last year Links The Sokal hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair James’ Psychological Science paper: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797615572908 The @IamSciComm Tweetstorm on podcasting: https://twitter.com/iamscicomm/status/935851867661357057Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James discuss whether you need to have “skin in the game” to critique research. Here's what else they cover in the episode: Should scientists be required to communicate their science? If your research is likely to be misinterpreted try and get out of in front of what's going to be said Will science communication just become another metric? The distinction between “science communication” and “science media” Who’s going to pay for all science communicators that we’ll need to communicate everyone’s science? Dan and James mispronounce Dutch and German names and give a formal apology to the nation of The Netherlands Outcome switching in clinical trials Does having skin in the game guarantee expertise, or just wild biases? James’ recent desk rejection from a Journal Editor Dan’s method to invite manuscript reviewers as an Associate Editor Links: The science communication Twitter thread https://twitter.com/ocaptmycapt/status/927193779693645825 ERC comics https://www.erccomics.com The “skin in the game” tweet https://twitter.com/paperbag1/status/914923706648055813 That study in neuopsychopharmacology on a IL-6 receptor antibody to treat residual symptoms in schizophrenia https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2017258Support Everything Hertz

In this episode, Dan and James welcome back Daniel Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology) to discuss his new paper on justifying your alpha level. Highlights: Why did Daniel write this paper? Turning away from mindless statistics Incremental vs. seismic change in statistical practice The limitations to justifying your alpha The benefits of registered reports Daniel’s coursera course What’s better? Two pre-registered studies at .05 or one unregistered study at .005? Testing at the start of semester vs. the end of semester Thinking of controlling for Type 1 errors as driving speed limits Error rates mean different things between fields What if we applied the “5 Sigma” threshold used in physics to the biobehavioral sciences? What about abandoning statistical significance How did Daniel co-ordinate a paper with 88 co-authors? Using time zones to your benefit when collaborating How can junior researchers contribute to these types of discussions? Science by discussion, not manifesto The dangers of blanket recommendations How do you actually justify your alpha from scratch? Links Daniel on Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/lakens Daniel’s courser course - https://www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences Justify your alpha paper - https://psyarxiv.com/9s3y6 Abandon statistical significance - https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.07588 Using the costs of error rates to set your alpha - https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00625.xSpecial Guest: Daniel Lakens.Support Everything Hertz

In this episode, Dan and James are joined by Jessica Polka, Director of ASAPbio, to chat about preprints. Highlights: What is ASAPbio? Differences between the publication processes in the biological sciences vs. the biomedical sciences Common concerns with preprints Media embargoes How peer review isn’t necessarily a mark of quality Do preprints make it harder to curate information? Specialty preprint servers vs. broad servers? How well do you need to format your preprint? How do you bring up preprints to lab heads and PIs? An example of a good preprint experience from Dan Using preprints for your grant applications What Jessica has changed her mind about The one article that Jessica thinks everyone should read Links Jessica's Twitter account - @jessicapolka ASAPbio - http://asapbio.org & @asapbio_ Rescuing Biomedical science conference 2014 resources - http://rescuingbiomedicalresearch.org/events/ Sherpa/Romeo - http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php PaleoArxiv - https://osf.io/preprints/paleorxiv Principles for Open Scholarly Infrastructures paper - https://figshare.com/articles/Principles_for_Open_Scholarly_Infrastructures_v1/1314859Special Guest: Jessica Polka.Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James celebrate their 50th episode with a live recording! They cover a blog post that argues grad students shouldn’t be publishing, what’s expected of today’s postdocs, and the ‘tone’ debate in psychology. BONUS: You can also watch the video of this episode on the Everything Hertz podcast channel (link below) Other stuff they cover: James offends a sociologist, as is his wont The argument for why grad students shouldn’t publish Gatekeepers controlling what’s being published Editors that Google authors before sending papers out for review Judging researchers on their institution’s location James on networking How do you challenge reviewers when they say you are "too junior" The standards of Frontiers papers Writing review papers for the wrong reasons Why are there so many meta-analyses? Pre-registering your meta-analysis Registered reports vs. pre-registration What’s expected of today’s postdocs How many papers should you peer review? How James tried to ward off review requests Things that millennials are ruining The role of humour in the tone debate Links Episode video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj3WsTiUuLo&t=3s The “should grad students publish" article: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/23/renewed-debate-over-whether-graduate-students-should-publish#.WaGAeN_v8jI.link Prospero meta-analysis registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ Eiko Fried’s tweet on postdoc expectations: https://twitter.com/eikofried/status/902470702892290048 James’ publons profile: https://publons.com/author/1171358/james-aj-heathers#profile JANE: http://jane.biosemantics.org Anonymous PubPeer comments: https://pubpeer.com/publications/0E0DAEBEC6183646F18F4FAED03B1A#7Support Everything Hertz

In this episode Dan and James discuss a forthcoming paper that's causing a bit of a stir by proposing that biobehavioral scientists should use a 0.005 p-value statistical significance threshold instead of 0.05. Stuff they cover: A summary of the paper and how they decided on 0.005. Whether raising the threshold the best way to improve reproducibility? Is 0.005 too stringent? Would this new threshold unfairly favour “super” labs? If we keep shifting the number does any threshold really matter? Dan and James’ first impressions of the paper A crash course on Mediterranean taxation systems What would a 0.005 threshold practically mean for researchers? Links The paper https://osf.io/mky9j/ ENIGMA consortium http://enigma.ini.usc.edu Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James are joined by Jason Hoyt, who is the CEO and co-founder of PeerJ, an open access journal for the biological and medical sciences. Here's some of what they cover: PeerJ’s model and how it got started What goes into running a journal Impact factors vs. low-cost publishing When the journal user experience is too good Getting a quick reviewer turnaround The need scientists to change their practices (not publishers) PeerJ’s membership model Glamour journals Future plans for PeerJ Predatory journals Researchers don’t want cheap journals, only impact factors Links PeerJ: https://peerj.com The Phoenix project: https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business-ebook/dp/B00AZRBLHO The Goal: https://www.amazon.com/Goal-Process-Ongoing-Improvement-ebook/dp/B002LHRM2O/ref=pd_sim_351_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=EMTE1M9W2XW5Q24X4GE8 Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Special Guest: Jason Hoyt.Support Everything Hertz

In this episode, Dan and James are joined by Anne Scheel (LMU Munich) to discuss open science advocacy. Highlights: How Anne became an open science advocate Open science is better science Methodological terrorists/freedom fighters The time Anne stood up after a conference keynote and asked a question Asking poor PhD students to pay for conference costs upfront and then reimbursing them 6 months later Is it worth if for early career researchers to push open science practices? How to begin with implementing open science practices Power analysis should be normal practice, it shouldn’t be controversial Anne’s going to start a podcast The 100%CI: A long copy blog with 4 writers The benefits of preprints and blogging Science communication in English for non-native English speakers Doing stuff that interests you vs. stuff that’s meant to advance your career Twitter accounts of people/things we mentioned: @dalejbarr - 2:10 @siminevazire - 2:45 @lakens - 2:45 @nicebread303 (Felix Schönbrodt)- 3:50 @annaveer - 21:40 @methodpodcast - 29:20 @the100ci - 30:40 @realscientists - 31:40 @upulie - 31:55 @fMRI_guy (Jens Foell) - 32:20 @realsci_DE (Real scientists Germany) - 32:30 @maltoesermalte, @_r_c_a, @dingding_peng (100% CI team) - 33:55 @stuartJRitchie - 65:05 Links Early Career Researchers and publishing practices: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1102/full (paywalled) Pre-registration in social psychology—A discussion and suggested template” Paywalled link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103116301925, Preprint link: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/4frms/ The CI 100%: http://www.the100.ci Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Special Guest: Anne Scheel.Support Everything Hertz

In this episode, Dan and James are joined by Andy Field (University of Sussex), author of the “Discovering Statistics” textbook series, to chat about statistical literacy. Highlights: The story behind Andy’s new book SPSS and Bayesian statistics Andy explains why he thinks the biggest problem in science is statistical illiteracy Researcher degrees of freedom and p-hacking The story behind the the first version of ‘Discovering statistics’ How to improve your statistical literacy Does peer review improve the statistics of papers Researchers will draw different conclusions on the same dataset The American Statistical Association’s statement on p-values How has the teaching of statistics for psychology degrees changed over the years Andy fact checks his own Wikipedia page Andy’s thoughts on Bayesian statistics and how he applied it in a recent paper The peer review of new statistical methods Andy’s future textbook plans The rudeness of mailing lists/discussion forums What is something academia or stats-related that Andy believes that others think is crazy? The one book that Andy recommends that everyone should read We learn the crossover in James and Andy’s taste in metal bands Links Andy’s books: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/author/andy-field-0 The ‘PENIS of statistics’ lecture from Andy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe3_DeLC2JE Daniel Lakens’ Coursera course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences The American Statistical Association’s statement on p-values: http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 The refereeing decision paper: https://osf.io/gvm2z/ R stan: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rstan/index.html Statistical rethinking book: https://www.crcpress.com/Statistical-Rethinking-A-Bayesian-Course-with-Examples-in-R-and-Stan/McElreath/p/book/9781482253443 Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Special Guest: Andy Field.Support Everything Hertz