On March 11th, we had our second speaker in our openCI Speaker Series, Bryan Cook, Ph.D. Dr. Cook, Professor of Education at University of Virginia, joined us to discuss his recent and growing interest in Open Science. He spoke about the implications of open science for research and publishing. Bryan challenged us with ideas about publication bias, the lack of replication studies in research, and the absurdity of paywalls. It was his comments about peer review that really grabbed my attention and that of the group. After discussing how peer review is not reliable, fails to detect fatally flawed studies and is not available to research consumers, we looked at some examples of open review. In open review, reviews and the reviewers are made public as is the version of the paper that has been reviewed. Some open review practices allow the public as a whole to rate the reviews and add comments. This concept pushed me from my comfort zone, but I am struck by the power of open review and the potential to reduce bias. The other concept that left many of us thinking deeply is the idea of ‘preregistration’ of research. Preregistration is a way researchers can publish their rationale and explicit research plan prior to conducting the work. The idea behind preregistration is to allow more reporting of null findings and to curb some of the questionable research practices that are commonly used such as data-peeking or Hypothesizing After Results Are Known (HARKing). Take a look at Bryan’s slides below, they are full of great resources. If that grabs your attention, pour a cup of coffee and settle in to listen to his full talk.