Description

Dan and James discuss two listener questions on performing secondary data analysis and the potential for prestige to creep into open science reforms.

More info and links:

• Why generate your own dataset when you can get a high impact paper using public data?
• Thanks to Stu Murray for the question
• Will people steal your ideas?
• The journal Scientific Data
• Are we now incentivising data mining rather than data collecting?
• Synthetic data
• Dan’s recent synthetic data preprint primer
• Ego and prestige got us into the mess we’re trying to fix with open science, but how can we stop this from happening again?
• Thanks to Robin Kok for the question, listen to our episode with him on e-health!
• Did all the people who co-authored the paper to change statistical significance the default p-value threshold to .005 actually do this in subsequent papers?
• Vagus nerve brain washing paper

Other links

• [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)

Episode citation and permanent link

Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2019, August 19) "Mo data mo problems", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/TQ75J