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
120: How false beliefs spread in science (with Cailin O'Connor)
119: Rules of thumb
118: Evidence-free gatekeeping
117: How we peer-review papers
116: In my opinion
115: A modest proposal
114: Diversity in science (with Jess Wade)
113: Citation needed
112: Leaving academia
111: The cumulative advantage of academic capital (with Chris Jackson)
110: Red flags for errors in papers
109: Open scientific publishing [Live episode]
108: Requiem for a Screen
107: Memes, TikTok, and science communication (with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti)
106: Science on the run
105: Tell it like it is (with Marike Schiffer)
104: Now we'll discover which meetings could've been emails
103: Swiping right
102: Master of none
101: Punishing research misconduct
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free
The Poetry of Science
Behavioral Grooves Podcast
Hidden Brain
Choiceology with Katy Milkman
The Science of Happiness