48: Breaking up with the impact factor (with Jason Hoyt)

Explicit content warning

07/21/17 • 53 min

Dan and James are joined by Jason Hoyt, who is the CEO and co-founder of PeerJ, an open access journal for the biological and medical sciences.

Here's some of what they cover:

PeerJ’s model and how it got started
What goes into running a journal
Impact factors vs. low-cost publishing
When the journal user experience is too good
Getting a quick reviewer turnaround
The need scientists to change their practices (not publishers)
PeerJ’s membership model
Glamour journals
Future plans for PeerJ
Predatory journals
Researchers don’t want cheap journals, only impact factors

Links

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Jason Hoyt.

Support Everything Hertz

Dan and James are joined by Jason Hoyt, who is the CEO and co-founder of PeerJ, an open access journal for the biological and medical sciences.

Here's some of what they cover:

PeerJ’s model and how it got started
What goes into running a journal
Impact factors vs. low-cost publishing
When the journal user experience is too good
Getting a quick reviewer turnaround
The need scientists to change their practices (not publishers)
PeerJ’s membership model
Glamour journals
Future plans for PeerJ
Predatory journals
Researchers don’t want cheap journals, only impact factors

Links

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Jason Hoyt.

Support Everything Hertz

Previous Episode

47: Truth bombs from a methodological freedom fighter (with Anne Scheel)

In this episode, Dan and James are joined by Anne Scheel (LMU Munich) to discuss open science advocacy.

Highlights:

How Anne became an open science advocate
Open science is better science
Methodological terrorists/freedom fighters
The time Anne stood up after a conference keynote and asked a question
Asking poor PhD students to pay for conference costs upfront and then reimbursing them 6 months later
Is it worth if for early career researchers to push open science practices?
How to begin with implementing open science practices
Power analysis should be normal practice, it shouldn’t be controversial
Anne’s going to start a podcast
The 100%CI: A long copy blog with 4 writers
The benefits of preprints and blogging
Science communication in English for non-native English speakers
Doing stuff that interests you vs. stuff that’s meant to advance your career

Twitter accounts of people/things we mentioned:
@dalejbarr - 2:10
@siminevazire - 2:45
@lakens - 2:45
@nicebread303 (Felix Schönbrodt)- 3:50
@annaveer - 21:40
@methodpodcast - 29:20
@the100ci - 30:40
@realscientists - 31:40
@upulie - 31:55
@fMRI_guy (Jens Foell) - 32:20
@realsci_DE (Real scientists Germany) - 32:30
@maltoesermalte, @_r_c_a, @dingding_peng (100% CI team) - 33:55
@stuartJRitchie - 65:05

Links

Early Career Researchers and publishing practices: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1102/full (paywalled)
Pre-registration in social psychology—A discussion and suggested template” Paywalled link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103116301925, Preprint link: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/4frms/
The CI 100%: http://www.the100.ci

Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Special Guest: Anne Scheel.

Support Everything Hertz

Next Episode

49: War and p's

In this episode Dan and James discuss a forthcoming paper that's causing a bit of a stir by proposing that biobehavioral scientists should use a 0.005 p-value statistical significance threshold instead of 0.05.

Stuff they cover: