190: What happens when you pay reviewers?

We chat about two new studies that took different approaches for evaluating the impact of paying reviewers on peer review speed and quality. Links * James' 450 movement proposal (https://jamesheathers.medium.com/the-450-movement-1f86132a29bd) * The paper (https://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/fulltext/9900/effect_of_monetary_incentives_on_peer_review.488.aspx) from Critical Care Medicine * The preprint (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.03.18.644032v1) from Biology Open Other links - Dan on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/dsquintana.bsky.social) - James on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/jamesheathers.bsky.social) - Everything Hertz on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/hertzpodcast.bsky.social) Citation Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2025, April 2). 190: What happens when you pay reviewers?, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/PHQ2K

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 (https://www.chronicle.com/article/social-science-is-broken-heres-how-to-fix-it?sra=true) by Andrew Gelman and Andrew King [Free to read with email registration] * The paper (https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2022-14587-001.html) by Peder Isager and collegues on how to decide what papers we should replicate. Here is the preprint (https://files.de-1.osf.io/v1/resources/2gurz/providers/osfstorage/5f4f4314a392b9002f1d9576?action=download&direct&version=2). * The ERROR project (https://error.reviews/about/) Other links Everything Hertz on Bluesky - Dan on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/dsquintana.bsky.social) - James on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/jamesheathers.bsky.social) - Everything Hertz on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/hertzpodcast.bsky.social) 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/3X5UR

Dan and James discuss a recent editorial which argues that double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity. Links * The editorial from Christopher Mebane: https://doi.org/10.1093/etojnl/vgae046 Other links Everything Hertz on Bluesky - Dan on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/dsquintana.bsky.social) - James on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/jamesheathers.bsky.social) - Everything Hertz on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/hertzpodcast.bsky.social) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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. (2025, Jan 30). Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6XS29

We chat about the events that started the replication crisis in psychology and Dorothy Bishop's recent resignation from the Royal Society Links * The resignation blogpost (http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2024/11/why-i-have-resigned-from-royal-society.html) from Dorothy Bishop * The bluesky post (https://bsky.app/profile/sarahwieten.bsky.social/post/3lbtsqc6jcs2z) from Sarah Weiten that asked the question, "If you had to cite an event that opened the "replication crisis" era, what would you point to?" * The "Year of Horrors" paper (https://www.ejwagenmakers.com/2012/Wagenmakers2012Horrors.pdf) from Eric-Jan Wagenmakers Other links Everything Hertz on Bluesky - Dan on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/dsquintana.bsky.social) - James on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/jamesheathers.bsky.social) - Everything Hertz on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/hertzpodcast.bsky.social) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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. (2024, Dec 3). 187: What started the replication crisis era?, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/EC7QH

In this episode we chat about a Nordic approach for evaluating the journal quality and how we should be teaching undergraduates to evaluate journal and article quality Links * The Norwegian journal register (https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/en/informasjonsartikler/about-the-norwegian-register) * The Finnish journal register (https://julkaisufoorumi.fi/en/publication-forum) * Episode 22 (https://everythinghertz.com/22), where we played "Pokemon or Cholesterol medication?" Other links Everything Hertz on social media - Dan on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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. (2024, Nov 13). 186: Evaluating journal quality, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KB37U

We discuss the recent retraction of a paper that reported the effects of rigour-enhancing practices on replicability. We also cover James' new estimate that 1 out of 7 scientific papers are fake. Links * The story (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02907-3) about data integrity concerns in 130 women’s health papers * James' new preprint (https://osf.io/23zcr) with the estimate that 1 out of 7 scientific papers are fake * The retracted paper in Nature Human Behavior (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01749-9) by Protzko and coworkers * The Matters Arising article (https://rdcu.be/dVXN8) from Bak-Coleman and Devezer, who initially raised concerns about the paper from Protzko and coworkers. * The Everything Hertz merch store (https://everything-hertz-podcast.creator-spring.com) * The paper (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0165551507086261) about puns/jokes in paper titles * The "Everything Hertz" paper (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2014.00177/full) from James * Dan's only paper (https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(15)00528-4/abstract) with a pun in the title Other links Everything Hertz on social media - Dan on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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. (2024, Oct 4). 185: The Retraction, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/528SF

Open access articles have democratized the availability of scientific research, but are author-paid publication fees undermining the quality of science? The preprint by Morgan and Smaldino - https://osf.io/preprints/osf/3ez9v Paul Smaldino's text book - Modeling social behavior (https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691224145/modeling-social-behavior) Main edisode takeaways (AI-assisted summary) There is a wide variability in the quality of papers published in gold open access journals and a wide variate of open access journals, some of which prioritise quality research Diamond open access and green open access are alternative models to consider. The publishing industry needs more transparency and mandatory reporting of data. The pressure to publish more can lead to a crowding out problem and a focus on quantity over quality. Determining the quality of journals and papers is challenging, and there are varying levels of quality within different tiers of journals. Fraudulent publishing practices, such as paper mills and fake papers, can be facilitated by the market for publishing. The Publons service (R.I.P) and similar platforms can improve the transparency of peer review and provide a record of reviewers' contributions. Society journals may offer a better publishing model as they have a reputation to maintain and are less likely to prioritize quantity over quality. Other links Everything Hertz on social media - Dan on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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. (2024, Sept 5). 184: A race to the bottom, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3MUJV

Dan and James discuss a paper describing a journal editor's efforts to receive data from authors who submitted papers with results that seemed a little too beautiful to be true Main edisode takeaways (AI generated summary) * This editorial on the reproducibility crisis emphasizes the importance of providing raw data in scientific publications and highlights the need for transparency and accountability in the research process * The lack of oversight and the discrepancy between the amount of data required for scientific statements and what is often provided in academic publishing is a cause for concern. * Ensuring the integrity of scientific research requires the active involvement of editors, reviewers, and researchers in promoting transparency and upholding ethical standards. The scientific publishing process lacks oversight and accountability, leading to potential issues with the accuracy and trustworthiness of published papers. * Journals should prioritize maintaining high standards and ensuring that papers are thoroughly reviewed and validated before publication. * Changing behaviors within the scientific community, such as pledging to publish in open access journals, can promote positive change and improve research integrity. * There is a need for active maintenance and improvement of the systems and parameters of scientific research to prevent potential negative consequences. Links for papers we mentioned * The Molecular Brain editorial by Miyakawa: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2 * The STALT preprint: https://osf.io/6hste Other links Everything Hertz on social media - Dan on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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. (2024, Aug 3). 183: Too beautiful to be true Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JF5MS

Dan and James answer a listener question on what practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields. Here are the main takeaways: Keeping laboratory records and using electronic lab management software is beneficial practices biology that would benefit the behavioral sciences The rate of pre-registration of meta-analysis in psychology is low, unlike other fields, which have a higher pre-registration rate. Here is the preprint on pre-registration of psychology meta-analyses that was mentioned: https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/627a4 Case studies (somewhat common in medicine) can provide valuable insights, especially when there is aggressive sampling and oversampling of single points Double-blinded should not be adopted. as these can be challenging to implement effectively and may not always work as intended Philosophers often (but not always) have a clear writing style and structure their arguments well, which can be enjoyable to read and should be more widely adopted The publishing industry needs more innovation, particularly in the areas of peer review and editorial processes Other links Everything Hertz on social media - Dan on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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. (2024, July 2). 182: What practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields? Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XN8DT

We discuss how following citation chains in psychology can often lead to unexpected places, and how this can contribute to unreplicable findings. We also discuss why team science has taken longer to catch on in psychology compared to other research fields. Here is the preprint that we mentioned authored by Andrew Gelman and Nick Brown - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/ekmdf Our episode with Nick Brown - https://everythinghertz.com/44 Other links Everything Hertz on social media - Dan on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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). (2024, June 3) "181: Down the rabbit hole", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/C7F9N