))
180: Consortium peer reviews
Manage episode 416040823 series 2510487
Content provided by Dan Quintana. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Dan Quintana or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ro.player.fm/legal.
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
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
184 episoade
Distribuie
