Show Notes
James and Dan chat about apologies vs. non-apologies, how to decide when to call it quits on a paper, and governments vetoing research proposals recommended by their own funding agencies
Links for stuff we mention
The tweet from Chris Jackson that started it all
Chris Jackson's Hertz episode on the cumulative advantage of academic capital
The Science Diagrams that Look Like Shitposts twitter account
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, a monthly newsletter, 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.A.J. (Hosts). (2022, April 4) "152: Sorry Not Sorry", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/WBVXZ Support Everything Hertz
More from Everything Hertz
We discuss how living meta‑analyses—meta‑analyses that are continuously updated as new studies appear—can cut research waste and keep evidence current. We also chat about how using synthetic research participants is a terrible idea.
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.
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
Dan and James answer listener questions on outsourcing in academia and differences in research culture between academic institutions and commercial institutions.
James and Dan discuss James' newly funded 'Medical Evidence Project', whose goal is to find questionable medical evidence that is contaminating treatment guidelines.