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.comOther linksEverything Hertz on social media- Dan on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers)- Everything Hertz on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/)Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) 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 CitationQuintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2024, May 2) "180: Consortium peer reviews", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/24FMP