Show Notes
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
More from Everything Hertz
We discuss how living meta‑analyses—meta‑analyses that are continuously updated as new studies appear—can cut research waste and keep evidence current. We also chat about how using synthetic research participants is a terrible idea.
We discuss whether preprint servers and journals should require author identity verification for submitting manuscripts. This would probably speed up the submission process, but is this worth the potential downsides? We also discuss the similarities and differences between academia and professional sports and a weird case of author identity theft.
Dan and James chat about a a new 'pop-up journal' concept for addressing specific research questions. They also answer a listener question from a journal grammar editor and discuss a new PNAS article on paper mills
Dan and James answer listener questions on outsourcing in academia and differences in research culture between academic institutions and commercial institutions.
James and Dan discuss James' newly funded 'Medical Evidence Project', whose goal is to find questionable medical evidence that is contaminating treatment guidelines.