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