188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity

https://is1-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Podcasts125/v4/0d/24/3c/0d243cd0-4ab2-6a0d-3d7c-7cd8b9db271e/mza_4437073954926040747.jpg/600x600bb.jpg

Everything Hertz

Dan Quintana

194 episodes

1 week ago

Methodology, scientific life, and bad language. Co-hosted by Dr. Dan Quintana (University of Oslo) and Dr. James Heathers (Cipher Skin)

All content for Everything Hertz is the property of Dan Quintana and is served directly from their servers with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.

Methodology, scientific life, and bad language. Co-hosted by Dr. Dan Quintana (University of Oslo) and Dr. James Heathers (Cipher Skin)

188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity

Everything Hertz

54 minutes 56 seconds

9 months ago

188: Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity

Dan and James discuss a recent editorial which argues that double-blind peer review is detrimental to scientific integrity.

Links

The editorial from Christopher Mebane: https://doi.org/10.1093/etojnl/vgae046

Other links
Everything Hertz on Bluesky

Support us on Patreon 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. (2025, Jan 30). Double-blind peer review vs. scientific integrity, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6XS29

Support Everything Hertz