180: Consortium peer reviews Everything Hertz

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
Support Everything Hertz