182: What practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields?
Dan and James answer a listener question on what practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields.
\n\nHere are the main takeaways:
\n\n- \n
- Keeping laboratory records and using electronic lab management software is beneficial practices biology that would benefit the behavioral sciences \n
- The rate of pre-registration of meta-analysis in psychology is low, unlike other fields, which have a higher pre-registration rate. Here is the preprint on pre-registration of psychology meta-analyses that was mentioned: https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/627a4 \n
- Case studies (somewhat common in medicine) can provide valuable insights, especially when there is aggressive sampling and oversampling of single points \n
- Double-blinded should not be adopted. as these can be challenging to implement effectively and may not always work as intended \n
- Philosophers often (but not always) have a clear writing style and structure their arguments well, which can be enjoyable to read and should be more widely adopted \n
- The publishing industry needs more innovation, particularly in the areas of peer review and editorial processes \n
Other links
\n\nEverything Hertz on social media
\n\n\n\nSupport us on Patreon and get bonus stuff!
\n\n- \n
- $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 \n
- $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month \n
Citation
\n\nQuintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, July 2). 182: What practices should the behavioural sciences borrow (and ignore) from other research fields? Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XN8DT