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
Other links
Everything Hertz on social media
Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!
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
140: You can’t buy cat biscuits with ‘thank you’ emails
139: Open science from a funder's perspective (with Ashley Farley)
138: Preprints in the time of coronavirus (with Michele Avissar-Whiting)
137: Ten rules for improving academic work-life balance
136: Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewed journals?
135: A loss of confidence
134: Paywalled questionnaires
133: Manuscript submission fees
132: Post-pandemic academia
131: Long live the overhead projector!
130: Normalizing retractions (with Dorothy Bishop)
129: Transparency audits
128: How do you generate new research ideas?
127: Speak up or shut up?
126: The division of scientific labor (with Saloni Dattani)
125: Upon reasonable request
124: From Ptolemy to Takeshi's Castle
123: Authenticated anonymity (with Michael Eisen)
122: Reoptimizing scientific publishing for the internet age (with Michael Eisen)
121: Transparent peer review
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free
The Poetry of Science
Behavioral Grooves Podcast
Hidden Brain
The Science of Happiness
Choiceology with Katy Milkman