How is outcome bias especially relevant to science publishing? What are some possible solutions for overcoming outcome bias? In what ways are the publishing and peer review processes flawed? Why do many (or maybe most) scientists perform peer reviews for free? What value do publishers add to the scientific process, especially given that the internet democratizes distribution? How do (and should) scientific journals differ from newspapers? What kinds of changes must academic systems implement in order to improve in parallel with the proposed improvements for journals? How likely is it that a random preregistered study will replicate? Why can't we come to a consensus about some fraught topics like ego depletion? Chris Chambers is a professor of cognitive neuroscience at Cardiff University. His primary research focuses on the psychology and neurobiology of executive functions and higher cognition. He is also interested in the relationship between science and the media, ways the academic community can better contribute to evidence-based public policy, and methods for improving the reliability and transparency of science. You can reach Chris via email at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]"), follow him on Twitter at @chrisdc77 (https://twitter.com/chrisdc77"), or learn more at his website (https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/people/view/133632-chambers-chris").