In this (open access!) paper we argue: commonly accepted scientific norms suggest rules for how cooperating scientists should decide which of their results they ought publish, and judgement aggregation theory gives tools to study how these rules interact. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-017-9887-1/fulltext.html?wt_mc=alerts.TOCjournals …
As we point out, it's also known what judgement aggregation rule is consistent with these rules taken together. I still agree and am happy with our work. But the kind of halfway house normativity bothers me. Are we actually recommending the proposition wise majority-rule or not?