180: Consortium peer reviews

Dan and James discuss why innovation in scientific publishing is so hard, an emerging consortium peer review model, and a recent replication of the 'refilling soup bowl' study. Other things they cover and links: Which studies should we spend time replicating? The business models of for-profit scientific publishers How many tacos can you buy with the money it costs to publish open access in Nature? The original soup bowl study: https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2005.12 The replication study: https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001503 The Peer Community In initiative: https://peercommunityin.org/ Stuart Buck's newsletter: https://goodscience.substack.com Other links Everything Hertz on social media Dan on twitter James on twitter Everything Hertz on twitter Everything Hertz on Facebook 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.A.J. (Hosts). (2024, May 2) "180: Consortium peer reviews", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/24FMP