Description
Dan and James discuss a recent paper that investigated how science journalists evaluate psychology papers. To answer this question, the researchers presented science journalists with fictitious psychology studies and manipulated sample size, sample representativeness, p-values, and institutional prestige
Links
The paper on how science journalists evaluate psychology papers
The preprint paper on small samples
Laboratory Life by Bruno Latour
Other links
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, 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). (2023, September 30) "173: How do science journalists evaluate psychology papers?", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/SG4BM
Support Everything Hertz
Dan and James discuss why innovation in scientific publishing is so hard, an emerging consortium peer review model, and a recent replication of the 'refilling soup bowl' study.
Other things they cover and links:
Which studies should we spend time replicating?
The business models of...
Published 05/02/24
Dan and James discuss how scientific research often neglects the importance of maintenance and long-term access for scientific tools and resources.
Other things they cover:
Should there be an annual limit on publications (even if this were somehow possible)?
The downsides of PhD by...
Published 04/03/24