110: Red flags for errors in papers

We answer a listener question on identifying red flags for errors in papers. Is there a way to better equip peer-reviewers for spotting errors and suspicious data?
More details and links...
We answer an audio question from Kim Mitchell (https://twitter.com/academicswrite).
Submit your audio questions via our website (https://everythinghertz.com/audio-question)
Nick Brown's blogpost (http://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2020/04/some-issues-in-recent-gaming-research.html) on the video game "study"
We ran a live survey using Prolific! Go to prolific.com/everythinghertz to get $50 worth of credit for $1
Spotting unlikely data in meta-analysis
How can make reviewers better at detecting errors in papers?
Using a "Red team (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_team)" to pull apart your papers
What do lay people think really happens in peer review?
Other links
- Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
- James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
- Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
- Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)
Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)
Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff!
$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)
Buy our merch from our online store (https://teespring.com/stores/everything-hertz-podcast)! We've got hats, mugs, hoodies, shirts + more
https://vangogh.teespring.com/v3/image/MMTLZXJvOr6yzbqO5k5mdkmfFhY/480/560.jpg
Cite this episode
Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, June 15) "110: Red flags for errors in papers", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VTYNG

We answer a listener question on identifying red flags for errors in papers. Is there a way to better equip peer-reviewers for spotting errors and suspicious data?

More details and links...

We answer an audio question from Kim Mitchell.
Submit your audio questions via our website
Nick Brown's blogpost on the video game "study"
We ran a live survey using Prolific! Go to prolific.com/everythinghertz to get $50 worth of credit for $1
Spotting unlikely data in meta-analysis
How can make reviewers better at detecting errors in papers?
Using a "Red team" to pull apart your papers
What do lay people think really happens in peer review?

Other links

[Dan on twitter](www.twitter.com/dsquintana)
[James on twitter](www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)
[Everything Hertz on twitter](www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast)
[Everything Hertz on Facebook](www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)

Music credits: [Lee Rosevere](freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/)

Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!

$1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

Buy our merch from our online store! We've got hats, mugs, hoodies, shirts + more

Cite this episode

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, June 15) "110: Red flags for errors in papers", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VTYNG

Sponsored By:

Everything Hertz listeners who want to give online sampling a go can get $50 in free Prolific credit that they can use to recruit participants, just go to prolific.co/everythinghertz Promo Code: everythinghertz

Support Everything Hertz