Today we give you part 2 of our discussion with Dr. Steven Paul Woods about the scientific process in neuropsychology. This time around we focus on the all-important peer review process, including big picture structural issues related to how this happens in academic journals, as well as specific advice for how to conduct a high quality peer review for a paper. Show notes are available at www.NavNeuro.com/184 _________________ If you'd like to support the show, here are a few easy ways: 1) Get CE credits for listening to select episodes: www.NavNeuro.com/INS 2) Tell your friends and colleagues about it 3) Subscribe (free) and leave an Apple Podcasts rating/review: www.NavNeuro.com/itunes 4) Check out our book Becoming a Neuropsychologist, and leave it an Amazon rating Thanks for listening, and join us next time as we continue to navigate the brain and behavior! [Note: This podcast and all linked content is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute the practice of psychology or any other professional healthcare advice and services. No professional relationship is formed between hosts and listeners. All content is to be used at listeners' own risk. Users should always seek appropriate medical and psychological care from their licensed healthcare provider.]

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related