James proposes that peer review reports should be published as their own citable objects, provided that the manuscript author thinks that the peer review report is of sufficient quality and the peer reviewers agree
Other links and things we dis
We chat with Ashley Farley about her background as an academic librarian, the underrecognised importance of copyright in academic publishing, and her work as a Program Officer at the Gates Foundation
An academic librarian’s perpsective on the i
We chat with Michele Avissar-Whiting about her role as the Editor-in-chief of the Research Square preprint platform and how she weighs up the benefits and costs of potentially problematic preprints during a pandemic.
Notes, links, and stuff we
Dan and James share their thoughts on a recent paper (https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009124) that proposes ten rules for improving academic work-life balance for early career researchers and the figure f
We discuss Journal Reviewer (journalreviewer.org), which is a website that provides a forum for researchers to share and rate their experiences with journal's peer review processes. We also cover how some journals negotiate the way in which the
Dan Quintana and James Heathers chat about well-known psychology studies that we've now lost confidence in due to replication failures and the role of auxiliary assumptions in hypothesis-driven research.
The reversals in psychology
We discuss a recent retraction triggered by the authors not paying a copyright fee to use a questionnaire (that also happened to be critical of the original questionnaire).
Links for stuff that we mention:
The paper (https://molecularautism.bi
Some journals use nominal manuscript submission fees to discourage frivolous submissions. However, it has been suggested that increasing submission fees could reduce article processing charges. Dan and James discuss this proposal, along with th
Dan and James discuss how academia should operate in a post-pandemic world. What pandemic practices should we keep and what should we abandon?
Links and details:
Quiz: Norwegian metal band or Norwegian town?
Things are slowly getting back to n
Dan and James answer listener audio questions on indirect costs for research grants, the mind/body problem, and why many academics aren't trained to teach. They also profess their love for the overhead projector
Some more details:
* Should we r
Dan and James chat with Dorothy Bishop (University of Oxford) about the importance of normalizing the retraction of scientific papers, publication ethics, and whether paper mills (companies that make fake papers at scale) are an issue in the ps
Dan and James discuss the recently proposed "transparency audit", why it received so much blowback, and the characteristics of successful reform schemes
The computational research integrity conference (https://cri-conf.org/)
Dan and James chat about how they come up with new ideas, why everyone seems to be trying to monetise their hobbies, and why it's so hard for most labs to have a singular focus of research.
We had some problems with James' mic so the quality of
We discuss when is the right time in your academic career to begin speaking up to critique your research field or whether the risk of retaliation means you should shut up and keep your head down. This was a recorded Clubhouse chat, which includ
We have a wide-ranging chat with Saloni Dattani (Kings College London and University of Hong Kong) about the benefits of dividing scientific labor, the magazine she co-founded (Works in Progress) that shares novel ideas and stories of progress,
Dan has a blue-sky proposal to increase data sharing—that funders mandate scholars to store and analyse data on their servers for which the funder decides what constitutes a reasonable data request (among other benefits)
Other stuff covered:
We discuss under which circumstances retracting decades-old articles is worth the time. We also chat about why LinkenIn is underrated (yes, really) and special journal issues are overrated.
A more specific list of topics and links:
We play a ga
Part two of our chat with Michael Eisen (eLife Editor-in-Cheif), in which we discuss the pros and cons of collaborative peer review, journal submission interfaces, Michael's take on James' proposal that peer reviewers should be paid $450 dollar
The internet should have transformed science publishing, but it didn't. We chat with Michael Eisen (Editor-in-Chief of eLife (https://elifesciences.org/)) about reoptimizing scientific publishing and peer review for the internet age.
Dan and James discuss the pros and cons of transparent peer-review, in which peer review reports are published alongside manuscripts, as a keynote feature at the recent Munin Conference on scholarly publishing.
Here's what they cover and some l
Dan and James chat with Cailin O'Connor (University of California, Irvine) about the how false beliefs spread in science and remedies for this issue
Here's what they cover:
Why should psychologist scientists learn about the philosophy of scienc
Dan and James discuss how rules of thumbs in science, such as those often applied to sample sizes and effect sizes, lead to mindless research evaluation.
More info and links:
Is there any justifcation for holding back the public posting of data
Dan and James answer audio listener questions on the worst review comments they've received (and how the responded), their thoughts on the current state of preprints, and how institutional prestige influences researcher evaluations.
Dan and James choose a preprint and walk through how they would peer-review it. James also provides an update on his recent proposal that scientists should be paid for performing peer reviews for journals published by for-profit companies
Dan and James chat about a recent twitter discussion on open science funding and the benefits of Editors sharing their opinions online. James also shares three project proposals that he thinks deserves funding, which Dan ranks.
Do you host or manage this podcast? Claim and edit this page to your liking.
Are we missing an episode or update? Use this to check the RSS feed immediately.