Remco Heesen's guest appearances

Remco Heesen

SCI PHI Podcast

Ipse Dixit

Game Changer - the game theory podcast

Ongekend

On Thinking

Matt Brown

Sarah Richardson

Branden Fitelson

David Baker

David Papineau

Massimo Pigliucci

Adina Roskies

Tim Maudlin

Michael Ruse

Alice Dreger

David Danks

Edouard Machery

Miriam Solomon

Sabina Leonelli

Dan Hicks

OwlTail

To share or not to share. Credit, incentives and competition among researchers | with Remco Heesen In this episode Remco Heesen shares his insights on the trade-offs researchers face when deciding whether to share intermediate results with fellow researchers. He explains how incentive structures in research lead to a suboptimal outcome and gives historic examples of prominent researchers who have been subject to these incentives. Remco then discusses possible measures that can be taken to encourage researchers to share intermediate results with their colleagues. Remco Heesen currently works as a researcher and senior lecturer at the University of Western Australia and the University of Groningen. Starting September this year he will take on a position as Assistant Professor at the London School of Economics and Political Sciences in the Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method. His research is focused on the philosophy of science, and social and formal epistemology.  In the interview, Remco mentions his PhD supervisor Kevin Zollman, who also was a guest on our show. You can listen to his episode on evolutionary game theory  here.

To share or not to share. Credit, incentives and competition among researchers | with Remco Heesen In this episode Remco Heesen shares his insights on the trade-offs researchers face when deciding whether to share intermediate results with fellow researchers. He explains how incentive structures in research lead to a suboptimal outcome and gives historic examples of prominent researchers who have been subject to these incentives. Remco then discusses possible measures that can be taken to encourage researchers to share intermediate results with their colleagues. Remco Heesen currently works as a researcher and senior lecturer at the University of Western Australia and the University of Groningen. Starting September this year he will take on a position as Assistant Professor at the London School of Economics and Political Sciences in the Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method. His research is focused on the philosophy of science, and social and formal epistemology.  In the interview, Remco mentions his PhD supervisor Kevin Zollman, who also was a guest on our show. You can listen to his episode on evolutionary game theory <a href="https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpodcasts.apple.com%2Fbh%2Fpodcast%2Fevolutionary-game-theory-or-why-you-can-trust-a%2Fid1536444695%3Fi%3D1000539701447&amp;data=05%7C01%7C%7C29a96e9597644802373c08daf3ef96e1%7C43ebb7b1befd48cda65d3e671fec1936%7C0%7C0%7C638090507616522292%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=OTSK25u01p6GsDMEsYN9dzYgaGJVmLu30X%2FV2WtMleE%3D&amp;reserved=0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> here</a>.

To share or not to share. Credit, incentives and competition among researchers | with Remco Heesen

#19. Across many scientific fields, roughly half of the research findings established over the past century – hundreds of thousands of results – might simply be untrue, and the rest might me much less important than previously thought. At the same time, more and more people trying to find the scientific literature themselves to interpret it. This seems like an interesting combination, which I discuss with philosoper of science Remco Heesen.Timeline03:00 What does a (single) scientific study reporting a "significant result" tell you?06:00 The replication crisis09:00 The holy grail of science: the p-value (or: how most scientists think about evidence and what you can conclude from it)13:00 P-hacking15:00 Why whether some study's result is (probably) Really True, depends on doing only study at a time19:00 Salami publishing and wrong economic and reputational incentives in the academic publication and career systems25:00 Solutions: preregistration, publishing negative results, opening up peer reviewMeer weten Remco Heesen: website, twitter, UWA pagina, RUG pagina  Maarten van Doorn: website, substack, twitter, RU pagina  Prinz, F., Schlange, T., &amp; Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10, 712. doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1  John Ionnadis - "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" Remco Heesen - Why the Reward Structure of Science Makes Reproducibility Problems Inevitable  Nature article over de replicatiecrisis en priming  Peerreview (Wikipedia)  Preregistration (Wikipedia) ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

#19. Across many scientific fields, roughly half of the research findings established over the past century – hundreds of thousands of results – might simply be untrue, and the rest might me much less important than previously thought. At the same time, more and more people trying to find the scientific literature themselves to interpret it. This seems like an interesting combination, which I discuss with philosoper of science Remco Heesen.Timeline 03:00 What does a (single) scientific study reporting a "significant result" tell you? 06:00 The replication crisis 09:00 The holy grail of science: the p-value (or: how most scientists think about evidence and what you can conclude from it) 13:00 P-hacking 15:00 Why whether some study's result is (probably) Really True, depends on doing only study at a time 19:00 Salami publishing and wrong economic and reputational incentives in the academic publication and career systems 25:00 Solutions: preregistration, publishing negative results, opening up peer reviewMeer weten<ul> <li>Remco Heesen: <a href="https://remcoheesen.eu/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">website</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/remcoheesen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.uwa.edu.au/profile/remco-heesen" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">UWA pagina</a>, <a href="https://www.rug.nl/staff/remco.heesen/research" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">RUG pagina</a> </li> <li>Maarten van Doorn: <a href="https://maartenvandoorn.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">website</a>, <a href="https://maartenvandoorn.substack.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">substack</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/maartenvdoorn" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.ru.nl/personen/doorn-m-j-van/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">RU pagina</a> </li> <li>Prinz, F., Schlange, T., &amp; Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10, 712. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd3439-c1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1</a> </li> <li>John Ionnadis - "<a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Why Most Published Research Findings Are False</a>"</li> <li>Remco Heesen - <a href="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15575/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Why the Reward Structure of Science Makes Reproducibility Problems Inevitable</a> </li> <li><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03755-2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Nature article over de replicatiecrisis en priming</a></li> <li> <a href="https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerreview" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Peerreview</a> <a href="https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerreview" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(Wikipedia)</a> </li> <li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preregistration_(science)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Preregistration (Wikipedia)</a></li> </ul><a href="https://www.patreon.com/maartenvandoorn" rel="payment nofollow" target="_blank">★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★</a>

Science's Replication Crisis 101 with Remco Heesen

On Episode 65, Nick chats with Dr. Remco Heesen, faculty member in philosophy at the University of Western Australia, about his research concerning what happens after scientific evidence is collected, such as the scientist’s choice of when to share her findings, and how peer review may affect what gets reported.

On Episode 65, Nick chats with Dr. Remco Heesen, faculty member in philosophy at the University of Western Australia, about his research concerning what happens after scientific evidence is collected, such as the scientist’s choice of when to share her findings, and how peer review may affect what gets reported.

Episode 65 - Remco Heesen