Everything Hertz

It’s conference season so in this episode Dan and James discuss the ins and outs of scientific conferences. Here’s what they cover: Research parasite award How much do you save when you don’t run an fMRI study They come up with an even better name than “Research parasite” Could the GOP weaponise the open science movement? Conspiracy theories Attempts to slow down science by taking science out of context The Black Goat Podcast The conference backchannel Contacting people at conferences Sitting though seminars (and not falling asleep) Twitter conferences Good presentations vs. bad presentations Starting collaborations at conferences Do conference locations matter? Periscoping conference presentations Links The research parasite award: http://researchparasite.com The GOP and science reform https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/04/reproducibility-science-open-judoflip/521952/ The Crackpot index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html The Brain Twitter conference https://brain.tc Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Support Everything Hertz

James and Dan are joined by Nick Brown (University of Groningen) to discuss how the New Bad People — also known as shameless little bullies, vigilantes, the self-appointed data police, angry nothings, scientific McCarthyites, second-stringers, whiners, the Stasi, destructo-critics, and wackaloons* — are trying to improve science Here’s what they cover Power imbalances in academia Publication bias Euphemisms for people who are publicly critical of science How to go about questioning the scientific record Peer reviewed criticism vs. blog posts Making meta-analysis easier Data-recycling Well-being and genomics Popular science books and conflicts of interest The ‘typical’ response to a Letter to an Editor What Dan and James do during the breaks Why don’t people report descriptive statistics anymore? Priming studies Science in the media What Nick has changed his mind about Links Nick on Twitter - @sTeamTraen Nick’s blog - http://steamtraen.blogspot.no This list is from one of James’ blog posts https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/meet-the-new-bad-people-4922137949a1 Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Special Guest: Nick Brown.Support Everything Hertz

Daniel Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology) joins James and Dan to talk meta-analysis. Here’s what they cover: Daniel’s opinion on the current state of meta-analysis The benefit of reporting guidelines (even though hardly anyone actually follows them) How fixing publication bias can fix science Meta-analysis before and after that Bem paper How to correct for publication bias Whether meta-analyses are just published for the citations The benefits of pre-registering meta-analysis How we get people to share their data How sharing data doesn’t just benefit others - it also helps you replicate your own analyses later Success is tied to funding, no matter how “cheap” your research is How people can say “yes” to cumulative science, but “no” to sharing data Responding to mistakes How to find errors in your own papers before submission We ask Daniel: i) If he could should one slide to every introductory psychology lecture in the world, what would say?, ii) What has he changed his mind about in the last few years?, iii) The one book/paper he thinks everyone should read Daniel also gives James and Dan ideas for their 50th episode Links Daniel on Twitter - @lakens Daniel’s course - www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences Daniel’s blog - daniellakens.blogspot.no Daniel’s recommended book - Understanding Psychology as a science https://he.palgrave.com/page/detail/?sf1=barcode&st1=9780230542303 Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Special Guest: Daniel Lakens.Support Everything Hertz

Daniel Lakens (Eindhoven University of Technology) drops in to talk statistical inference with James and Dan. Here’s what they cover: How did Daniel get into statistical inference? Are we overdoing the Frequentist vs. Bayes debate? What situations better suit Bayesian inference? The over advertising of Bayesian inference Study design is underrated The limits of p-values Why not report both p-values and Bayes factors? The “perfect t-test” script and the difference between Student’s and Welch’s t-tests The two-one sided test Frequentist and Bayesian approaches for stopping procedures Why James and Dan started the podcast The worst bits of advice that Daniel has heard about statistical inference Dan discuss a new preprint on Bayes factors in psychiatry Statistical power Excel isn’t all bad… The importance of accessible software We ask Daniel about his research workflow - how does he get stuff done? Using blog posts as a way of gauging interest in a topic Chris Chambers’ new book: The seven deadly sins of psychology Even more names for methodological terrorists Links Daniel on Twitter - @lakens Daniel’s course - https://www.coursera.org/learn/statistical-inferences Daniel’s blog - http://daniellakens.blogspot.no TOSTER - http://daniellakens.blogspot.no/2016/12/tost-equivalence-testing-r-package.html Dan’s preprint on Bayesian alternatives for psychiatry research - https://osf.io/sgpe9/ Understanding the new statistics - https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-New-Statistics-Meta-Analysis-Multivariate/dp/041587968X Daniel’s effect size paper - http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863/full The seven deadly sins of Psychology - http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10970.htmlSpecial Guest: Daniel Lakens.Support Everything Hertz

In this episode, Dan and James are joined by William Gunn (Director of Scholarly communications at Elsevier) to discuss ways in which you can object to published research. They also cover: What differentiates an analytics company from a publishing company? How scientific journals are one of the last areas to fully adopt the dynamic nature of the internet Data repositories How to make a correction in a journal The benefits of Registered Reports When everyone asked Elsevier for a journal of negative results but no one submitted to them How unit of publication isn’t really indicative of science as a process Altmetrics and gaming the system How to appeal to a journal about a paper Citation cartels: the dumbest crime William’s switch from research to publishing and his shift in perspective The crackpot index James’ flowchart on how to contact an editor The copyediting process Elsevier’s approach to open peer review: should junior researchers be worried? The one thing William thinks that everyone else thinks is crazy William’s most worthwhile career investment The one paper that William thinks everyone should read Links Williams’s twitter account: @mrgunn Williams’s blog: http://synthesis.williamgunn.org The Crackpot index: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html The paper William thinks everyone should read: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/8/341/341ps12.full Special Guest: William Gunn.Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James are joined by Michèle Nuijten (Tilburg University) to discuss 'statcheck', an algorithm that automatically scans papers for statistical tests, recomputes p-values, and flags inconsistencies. They also cover: How Michèle dealt with statcheck criticisms Psychological Science’s pilot of statcheck for journal submissions Detecting data fraud When should a journal issue a correction? Future plans for statcheck The one thing Michèle thinks that everyone else thinks is crazy Michèle's most worthwhile career investment The one paper that Michèle thinks everyone should read Links Michèle's website: https://mbnuijten.com Michèle's twitter account: https://twitter.com/michelenuijten Statcheck: https://statcheck.io Tilberg University meta-research center: http://metaresearch.nl Guardian story on detecting science fraud: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/01/high-tech-war-on-science The paper Michèle thinks everyone should read: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/DPlab/papers/publishedPapers/Simmons_2011_False-Positive%20Psychology.pdf Everything Hertz on Twitter: https://twitter.com/hertzpodcast Everything Hertz on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast The startup scientist, Dan's other podcast on boosting your scientific career: https://soundcloud.com/startup-scientist-podcast Special Guest: Michèle Nuijten.Support Everything Hertz

We all know hipsters. You know, like the guy that rides his Penny-farthing to the local cafe to write his memoirs on a typewriter - just because its more ‘authentic’. In this episode, James and Dan discuss academic hipsters. These are people who insist you need to use specific tools in your science like R, python, and LaTeX. So should you start using these trendy tools despite the steep learning curve? Other stuff they cover: Why James finally jumped onto Twitter A new segment: 2-minutes hate The senior academic that blamed an uncredited co-author for data anomalies An infographic ranking science journalism quality that’s mostly wrong When to learn new tools, and when to stick with what you know Authorea as a good example of a compromise between "easy" and "reproducible" Links The science journalism infographic http://www.nature.com/news/science-journalism-can-be-evidence-based-compelling-and-wrong-1.21591 Facebook page www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/ Twitter account www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast Music credits: Lee Rosevere http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James continue their discussion on work/life balance in academia. They also suggest ways to get your work done within a sane amount of hours as well as how to pick the right lab. Some of the topics covered: Feedback from our last episode Why the podcast started in the first place The "Red Queen" problem Does the "70 hour lab" produce better work? Some experiments aren't suited to a 9-5 schedule More tips for anonomusly skiving off at work What are cognitive limits off focused work? Do early career researchers even earn the minimum wage when you factor in the hours worked? How James gets things done: Work on one thing at a time until it's done and protect your time How Dan gets things done: Pomodoros (40 mins work, 10 minute break), blocking social/news websites How do pick a lab to work in? Links Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/ Twitter account https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcastSupport Everything Hertz

In this episode, we talk work/life balance for early career researchers. Do you need to work a 70-hour week to be a successful scientist or can you actually have a life outside the lab? Some of the topics covered: An update on "the postdoc that didn't say no" story Brian Wansink's response De-identifying data in research The perils of public criticism Criticising the research vs. criticising the person Some sage advice from a senior academic on "Making science the centre of your life" Look for a boss that won't make insane demands of your time How much good work is really coming out of a 70-hour week? An old hack Dan used to do to pretend he was working on data when he was really just on twitter Links GRIM test calculator http://www.prepubmed.org/grim_test/ Jordan's follow-up post https://medium.com/@OmnesRes/the-donald-trump-of-food-research-49e2bc7daa41#.me8e97z51 Brian Wansink's response http://www.brianwansink.com/phd-advice/statistical-heartburn-and-long-term-lessons The "Making science the centre of your life" slide https://twitter.com/hertzpodcast/status/832501121893724160 Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/ Twitter account https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcastSupport Everything Hertz

Topics discussed in the podcast include statistical inconsistencies in research, a caffeine study mishap, research scandal repercussions, detecting data inconsistencies, and ensuring research accuracy with stat checks and R Markdown. The hosts share personal anecdotes, reflect on challenges in research integrity, and discuss solutions like the GRIM test and open science practices.