In this episode, Dan and James chat with microbiologist Elisabeth Bik about about the detection of problematic images in scientific papers, the state of microbiome research, and making the jump from academia to industry.

More info on what they cover:

- How Elisabeth get into error detection of scientific images
- The process of detecting errors in images 
- How groups of authors tend to publish multiple papers with problematic images
- The association between journal prestige and problematic images
- Providing monetary incentives for publications
- Making the jump from academia to industry 
- The current state of microbiome research

Links
- Patreon: www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast
- Elisabeth on Twitter:  www.twitter.com/microbiomdigest
- Elisabeth online: https://microbiomedigest.com 
- The problematic image paper: https://mbio.asm.org/content/7/3/e00809-16.short
- Pubpeer: https://pubpeer.com
- 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 $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

74: Seeing double (with Elisabeth Bik)

We’re joined by Daniele Marinazzo (University of Ghent) to chat about the recently launched overlay journal Neurons, Behavior, Data analysis and Theory (NBDT), for which he on the Editorial Board. 

An overlay journal is organised a set of manuscripts that is published and hosted by a seperate entity (in this case, the Arxiv server), a feature that dramatically reduces publication costs. We discuss the unique overlay model, how this can drive article fees to essentially zero, and what it takes to build a good community journal.

Here’s what we cover:

- Why launch a new neuroscience journal and how is it different from currently established journals?
- The unique way that editor’s decide which papers to send out for review
- How does the journal operate when it’s open access and submissions only cost $10?
- How do you build a journal that your target community will recognise as a ‘good’ journal?
- The process of submitting a manuscript to NBDT
- Should journals allow or encourage authors to suggest potential reviewers for their papers?
- Using Twitter to find reviewers based on who’s ‘liked’ the preprint 
- Is posting a preprint on twitter actually useful?
- What can neuroscience learn from the field of physics?
- Authorship attribution
- How can a journal better champion early career researchers?

Links...

NBDT journal: https://nbdt.scholasticahq.com
Danielle on twitter: https://twitter.com/dan_marinazzo
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/

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 $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

75: Overlay journals (with Daniele Marinazzo)

Peer review is typically conducted behind closed doors. There's been a recent push to make open peer review standard, but what's often left out of these conversations are the potential downsides. To illustrate this, Dan and James discuss a recent instance of open peer review that led to considerable online debate.

Here's what they cover...

- How should we navigate the open review of preprints?
- Gate keepers gonna gate keep, but is this better out in the open?
- Weaponising openness 
- Some people don't realise that some data can’t be shared
- Should the reviewers of rejected papers follow them to the next journal?
- When bad papers that you reject pop up in another journal, unchanged
- Does the venue and timing of the open peer review matter?
- Signing your reviews
- Using publons to track your reviews

Links
- Brad Love’s blog post: http://bradlove.org/blog/open-review
- Niko’s blog post: https://nikokriegeskorte.org/2019/01/09/whats-the-best-measure-of-representational-dissimilarity/
- Publons: https://publons.com
- 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/

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 $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)

76: Open peer review

A podcast by scientists, for scientists. Methodology, scientific life, and bad language. Co-hosted by Dr. Dan Quintana and Dr. James Heathers

This track is not available anymore.

Other tracks from Everything Hertz Podcast