In this episode, James sits in the guest chair as Dan interviews him on his recent work find and exposing inconsistent results in the scientific literature.
Stuff they cover:
- How James got into finding and exposing inconsistent results
- The critiques of James’ critiques
- How James would do things differently, if he were start over again?
- Separating nefarious motives from sloppiness
- The indirect victims of sloppy science
- Grants that fund sloppy science take resources from responsible science projects
- If people actually posted their data and methods, James’ job would be much easier
- Registered reports improve the quality of science
- If James could show one slide to every introductory psychology lecture what would it say?
- The one thing James believes that others think is crazy
- What James has changed his mind about in the last year
Links
The Sokal hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
James’ Psychological Science paper: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797615572908
The @IamSciComm Tweetstorm on podcasting: https://twitter.com/iamscicomm/status/935851867661357057
