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
* The paper (https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231183912) on how science journalists evaluate psychology papers
* The preprint paper (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.19.558509v1) on small samples
* Laboratory Life (https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691028323/laboratory-life) by Bruno Latour
Other links
Everything Hertz on social media
- 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/)
Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff!
$1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show
$5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month
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