Because I make my email publicly available, and because of the ‘Corresponding’ part of ‘Corresponding Author’ I get emailed lots of questions. This is great and I like it, but it occasionally repeats itself. So questions I have to answer more than once have answers to here.


Can I ask you a question about meta-science / GRIM / HRV / psychology / exercise physiology?

Sure you can, absolutely, happy to talk to you. Excuse the spam-defeating format, it’s jamesheathers [at] gmail [dot] com. Fire away.


Will you send me a copy of *insert name of paper here from Research tab* you wrote?

Of course! Just email.


I’m a journalist. Will you answer my science question in an official capacity?

I’ll advance opinions, cautiously, on things I know about. Naturally, this means I try not to speculate wildly on other stuff. Feel free to ask, bear in mind I may have to refer your elsewhere.


Would you like to contribute to my special journal edition / book volume / guest edit my journal etc. and pay for the privilege?

Would I like to pay you so I can write? I’ll let you guess the answer to this one.


Can you help me with this biosignal problem? Happy to let you be on the paper.

My answer to this used to be sure, OK. It has changed to absolutely not.

Let me explain.

1. I could happily sit here and write a paper a month for five years with the data I already have access to, a lot of it data I ran myself at some point. I have too many opportunities to write things – at any one time, I owe half a dozen people a draft of something. I have papers lying around in bits everywhere. Some of them have been superseded by new ideas. Some of them have analytical problems I can’t solve. I don’t need more work.

2. I’ve spent a long time helping both people I know and people off the internet for ‘credit’, and had that go bad on me. Or they regret to inform me, after I’ve spent several hours un-stuffing their data or problems, finding them signals, working on their design or rationale, etc. that they’re not allowed to put me on a paper because their PI said no.

Or because it was off a grant which didn’t include me.

Or just disappear altogether.

These revelations, somehow always disappointing, somehow always contrary to expectations, happen after I’ve done their work or solved their problems for nothing.

So, here are your options:

1) we’re going to co-write a grant
2) you’re going to pay my consulting fee
3) you’ve got a project I’m really interested in, or you have data I need
4) you’re going to offer me a job

I’m afraid this isn’t negotiable.


So, what’s your consulting fee?

It changes radically depending on who I’m talking to. The fee schedule is simple and has categories, one of which you will meet more than the other:

(a) (1) individual, university, charity, etc.; (2) development of technique, analysis, requires theoretical clarity or strategic advice; (3) publication outcome, (4) no protected IP / NDA unnecessary; (5) non-profit. $100 USD per cons. (1.5 hours, inc. follow-up, references, future communication, ongoing advice, etc.) 

(b) (1) corporation, partnership or cooperative; (2) working on device development, algorithms, or development pipeline for physiological device; (3) no publication outcome, (4) IP owned by client / NDA possible; (5) for-profit. $250 USD p.h. Analysis / offline rates are negotiable.

Leave a Reply