Everything Hertz

They explore living meta-analyses that are continuously updated to keep evidence current and reduce research waste. They debate what counts as “recent” in scientific literature and citation practices. They warn about risks of synthetic research participants and discuss verification, business incentives, and threats to research integrity.

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

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

A lively look at experiments that pay peer reviewers and whether money speeds things up. They compare a $250 randomized trial with a contracted retainer pilot that produced much faster turnarounds. Conversation covers trial design, measuring review quality, costs and scaling, and who might realistically fund paid review models.

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

A lively debate about whether double-blind peer review helps or harms scientific integrity. They weigh how masking authors can fail in practice and when it might still reduce prestige bias. The conversation covers data availability, editor responsibility, paper-mill risks, language bias, and practical fixes like ORCID, blinded invites, and publishing review reports.

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.