The full report is posted here www.healtheffects.org/system/files...

along with commentary from HEI's Research Committee and Appendix material here: www.healtheffects.org/publication/...

Yes, I believe the technical term for this is enshittification.

Lived in Copenhagen last year and New Year's Eve was 100% the worst time to be there. I just do not understand it.

Overshoot (again I've only read the first few chapters) is extensively documented but written in a much more polemical and frustrated style that I think KT are keen to avoid. Maybe that's what appealed to the NYRB reviewer. Hope to see your take soon!

Yes, that rings true. I've only read the "Invent" chapter of Abundance, which is all about the stifling effects of risk aversion and excess paperwork on scientific innovation [likely true], but pays little attention to the role of perverse incentives (counting up pubs and grant dollars, etc.).

It's not a particularly deep critique of Abundance, but I did enjoy this review essay by economic historian Trevor Jackson, which simultaneously reviewed "Overshoot" by Malm and Carton. Happy to send you the full text if you don't have access. www.nybooks.com/articles/202...

I think the answer is no. I recall an interesting short overview in Mutz’s ‘Population-Based Survey Experiments’ but perhaps dated now (2011).

Fully agree. In exactly the same way that making all of the material (protocol, data, code) available for reproducing research also is no guarantee of "better" research. Transparency is (largely) good, but can't delude ourselves that improved transparency equals improved quality.