Metascience

Metascience (also known as meta-research) is the use of scientific methodology to study science itself. Metascience seeks to increase the quality of scientific research and enhance its efficiency. It is also known as "research on research" and "the science of science", as it uses research methods to study how research is done and find where improvements can be made. Metascience concerns itself with all fields of research and has been described as "a bird's eye view of science".[1] In the words of John Ioannidis, "Science is the best thing that has happened to human beings ... but we can do it better."[2]

In 1966, an early meta-research paper examined the statistical methods of 295 papers published in ten high-profile medical journals.[3] It found that "in almost 73% of the reports read ... conclusions were drawn when the justification for these conclusions was invalid." Meta-research in the following decades found many methodological flaws, inefficiencies, and poor practices in research across numerous scientific fields. Many scientific studies could not be reproduced, particularly in medicine and the soft sciences. The term "replication crisis" was coined in the early 2010s as part of a growing awareness of the problem.[4]

Measures have been implemented to address the issues revealed by metascience. These measures include the pre-registration of scientific studies and clinical trials, as well as the founding of organizations such as CONSORT and the EQUATOR Network that issue guidelines for methodology and reporting. There are ongoing efforts aimed at addressing misuse of statistics, eliminating perverse incentives within academic institutions, improving the peer review process, systematically collecting data about the scholarly publication system,[5] combating bias in scientific literature, and enhancing the overall quality and efficiency of the scientific process. As such, metascience is a big part of methods underlying the open science movement.

## Contents

* 1 History
* 2 Fields and topics of meta-research
* 2.1 Methods
* 2.1.1 Scientific data science
* 2.1.2 Journalology
* 2.2 Reporting
* 2.3 Reproducibility
* 2.4 Evaluation and incentives
* 2.4.1 Contributorship
* 2.4.2 Assessment factors
* 2.4.3 Recognition of training
* 2.4.4 Scientometrics
* 2.4.5 Science governance
* 2.4.5.1 Incentives
* 2.4.5.2 Science funding and awards
* 2.4.5.3 Research questions and coordination
* 2.4.5.4 Risk governance
* 2.5 Science communication and public use
* 2.5.1 Alternative metrics tools
* 2.5.2 Societal implications and applications
* 2.5.3 Knowledge integration
* 2.5.4 Science journalism
* 2.6 Science education
* 2.6.1 Science misconceptions and anti-science attitudes
* 2.7 Evolution of sciences
* 2.7.1 Scientific practice
* 2.7.2 Science overall and intrafield developments
* 2.7.2.1 Subject-level resolutions
* 2.7.2.2 Growth or stagnation of science overall
* 2.8 Topic mapping
* 2.9 Controversies, current debates and disagreement
* 2.10 Challenges of interpretation of pooled results
* 2.11 Knowledge integration and living documents
* 2.12 Factors of success and progress
* 2.12.1 Novel ideas and disruptive scholarship
* 2.12.2 Mentorship, partnerships and social factors
* 2.12.3 Study of successful scientists and processes, general skills and activities
* 2.12.4 Labor advantage
* 2.12.5 Ultimate impacts
* 2.12.6 Progress studies
* 2.12.7 As and for acceleration of progress
* 3 Reforms
* 3.1 Pre-registration
* 3.2 Reporting standards
* 4 Applications
* 4.1 Information and communications technologies
* 4.1.1 Study screening and feedback
* 4.1.2 Tools used, modified, extended or investigated
* 4.1.3 Development
* 4.2 Medicine
* 4.3 Psychology
* 4.4 Physics
* 4.5 Computer Science
* 5 Organizations and institutes
* 6 See also
* 7 References
* 8 Further reading
* 9 External links
* 9.1 Journals
* 9.2 Conferences

## History

John Ioannidis (2005), "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"[6]

In 1966, an early meta-research paper examined the statistical methods of 295 papers published in ten high-profile medical journals. It found that "in almost 73% of the reports read ... conclusions were drawn when the justification for these conclusions was invalid."[7] A paper in 1976 called for funding for meta-research: "Because the very nature of research on research, particularly if it is prospective, requires long periods of time, we recommend that independent, highly competent groups be established with ample, long term support to conduct and support retrospective and prospective research on the nature of scientific discovery".[8] In 2005, John Ioannidis published a paper titled "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", which argued that a majority of papers in the medical field produce conclusions that are wrong.[6] The paper went on to become the most downloaded paper in the Public Library of Science[9][10] and is considered foundational to the field of metascience.[11] In a related study with Jeremy Howick and Despina Koletsi, Ioannidis showed that only a minority of medical interventions are supported by 'high quality' evidence according to The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.[12] Later meta-research identified widespread difficulty in replicating results in many scientific fields, including psychology and medicine. This problem was termed "the replication crisis". Metascience has grown as a reaction to the replication crisis and to concerns about waste in research.[13]

Major publishers have committed resources to meta-research and quality improvement initiatives. Top journals such as Science, The Lancet, and Nature, provide ongoing coverage of meta-research and problems with reproducibility.[14] In 2012 PLOS ONE launched a Reproducibility Initiative. In 2015 BioMed Central introduced a minimum-standards-of-reporting checklist to four titles.

The first international conference in the broad area of meta-research was the Research Waste/EQUATOR conference held in Edinburgh in 2015; the first international conference on peer review was the Peer Review Congress held in 1989.[15] In 2016, Research Integrity and Peer Review was launched. The journal's opening editorial called for "research that will increase our understanding and suggest potential solutions to issues related to peer review, study reporting, and research and publication ethics".[16]

On 8 July 2025, an editorial published in Nature announced the birth of the Metascience Alliance, a coalition of more than 25 funders, academic groups, companies, and other institutions that pursue metascience: the use of scientific methods to understand and improve science itself. The initiative was attended in London by more than 830 participants from around 65 countries. The editorial calls upon metascientists not to limit themselves to studies within academia, but to address the broader social needs, to communicate scientific uncertainty effectively, and rebuild public trust in science.[17]

## Fields and topics of meta-research

An exemplary visualization of a conception of scientific knowledge generation structured by layers, with the "Institution of Science" being the subject of metascience

Metascience can be categorized into five major areas of interest: Methods, Reporting, Reproducibility, Evaluation, and Incentives. These correspond, respectively, with how to perform, communicate, verify, evaluate, and reward research.[1]

### Methods

Metascience seeks to identify poor research practices, including biases in research, poor study design, abuse of statistics, and to find methods to reduce these practices.[1] Meta-research has identified numerous biases in scientific literature,[18] particularly the misuse of p-values and overreliance on significance testing.[19][20]

#### Scientific data science

Scientific data science is the use of data science to analyse research papers. It encompasses qualitative and quantitative methods. Research in scientific data science includes fraud detection.[21] and citation network analysis.[22]

#### Journalology

Main article: Journalology

Journalology, also known as publication science, is the scholarly study of all aspects of the academic publishing process.[23][24] The field seeks to improve the quality of scholarly research by implementing evidence-based practices in academic publishing.[25] The term "journalology" was coined by Stephen Lock, the former editor-in-chief of The BMJ. The first Peer Review Congress, held in 1989 in Chicago, Illinois, is considered a pivotal moment in the founding of journalology as a distinct field.[25] The field of journalology has been influential in pushing for study pre-registration in science, particularly in clinical trials. Clinical-trial registration is now expected in most countries.[25]

### Reporting

Meta-research has identified poor practices in reporting, explaining, disseminating and popularizing research, particularly within the social and health sciences. Poor reporting makes it difficult to accurately interpret the results of scientific studies, to replicate studies, and to identify biases and conflicts of interest in the authors. Solutions include the implementation of reporting standards, and greater transparency in scientific studies (including better requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest). There is an attempt to standardize reporting of data and methodology through the creation of guidelines by reporting agencies such as CONSORT and the larger EQUATOR Network.[1]

### Reproducibility

Barriers to conducting replications of experiment in cancer research, The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology

The replication crisis is an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate.[26][27] While the crisis has its roots in the meta-research of the mid- to late 20th century, the phrase "replication crisis" was not coined until the early 2010s[28] as part of a growing awareness of the problem.[1] The replication crisis has been closely studied in psychology (especially social psychology) and medicine,[29][30] including cancer research.[31][32] Replication is an essential part of the scientific process, and the widespread failure of replication puts into question the reliability of affected fields.[33]

Moreover, replication of research (or failure to replicate) is considered less influential than original research, and is less likely to be published in many fields. This discourages the reporting of, and even attempts to replicate, studies.[34][35]

### Evaluation and incentives

Metascience seeks to create a scientific foundation for peer review. Meta-research evaluates peer review systems including pre-publication peer review, post-publication peer review, and open peer review. It also seeks to develop better research funding criteria.[1]

Metascience seeks to promote better research through better incentive systems. This includes studying the accuracy, effectiveness, costs, and benefits of different approaches to ranking and evaluating research and those who perform it.[1] Critics argue that perverse incentives have created a publish-or-perish environment in academia which promotes the production of junk science, low quality research, and false positives.[36][37] According to Brian Nosek, "The problem that we face is that the incentive system is focused almost entirely on getting research published, rather than on getting research right."[38] Proponents of reform seek to structure the incentive system to favor higher-quality results.[39] For example, by quality being judged on the basis of narrative expert evaluations ("rather than [only or mainly] indices"), institutional evaluation criteria, guaranteeing of transparency, and professional standards.[40]

#### Contributorship

Studies proposed machine-readable standards and (a taxonomy of) badges for science publication management systems that hones in on contributorship – who has contributed what and how much of the research labor – rather that using traditional concept of plain authorship – who was involved in any way creation of a publication.[41][42][43][44] A study pointed out one of the problems associated with the ongoing neglect of contribution nuanciation – it found that "the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers".[45]

#### Assessment factors

Factors other than a submission's merits can substantially influence peer reviewers' evaluations.[46] Such factors may however also be important such as the use of track-records about the veracity of a researchers' prior publications and its alignment with public interests. Nevertheless, evaluation systems – include those of peer-review – may substantially lack mechanisms and criteria that are oriented or well-performingly oriented towards merit, real-world positive impact, progress and public usefulness rather than analytical indicators such as number of citations or altmetrics even when such can be used as partial indicators of such ends.[47][48] Rethinking of the academic reward structure "to offer more formal recognition for intermediate products, such as data" could have positive impacts and reduce data withholding.[49]

#### Recognition of training

A commentary noted that academic rankings don't consider where (country and institute) the respective researchers were trained.[50]

#### Scientometrics

Main article: Scientometrics

Scientometrics concerns itself with measuring bibliographic data in scientific publications. Major research issues include the measurement of the impact of research papers and academic journals, the understanding of scientific citations, and the use of such measurements in policy and management contexts.[51] Studies suggest that "metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades" and have to some degrees "ceased" to be good measures,[45][20] leading to issues such as "overproduction, unnecessary fragmentations, overselling, predatory journals (pay and publish), clever plagiarism, and deliberate obfuscation of scientific results so as to sell and oversell".[52]

Novel tools in this area include systems to quantify how much the cited-node informs the citing-node.[53] This can be used to convert unweighted citation networks to a weighted one and then for importance assessment, deriving "impact metrics for the various entities involved, like the publications, authors etc"[54] as well as, among other tools, for search engine- and recommendation systems.

#### Science governance

See also: Science policy and Science of science policy

Science funding and science governance can also be explored and informed by metascience.[55]

##### Incentives

Various interventions such as prioritization can be important. For instance, the concept of differential technological development refers to deliberately developing technologies – e.g. control-, safety- and policy-technologies versus risky biotechnologies – at different precautionary paces to decrease risks, mainly global catastrophic risk, by influencing the sequence in which technologies are developed.[56][57] Conventional legislative and incentive structures may be insufficient to ensure proper scientific governance because they often respond too slowly or inadequately to emerging challenges.[58]

Other incentives to govern science and related processes, including via metascience-based reforms, may include ensuring accountability to the public (in terms of e.g. accessibility of, especially publicly-funded, research or of it addressing various research topics of public interest in serious manners), increasing the qualified productive scientific workforce, improving the efficiency of science to improve problem-solving in general, and facilitating that unambiguous societal needs based on solid scientific evidence – such as about human physiology – are adequately prioritized and addressed. Such interventions, incentives and intervention-designs can be subjects of metascience.

##### Science funding and awards

File:Locations of papers in a map of science and locations of the key papers for Nobel prizes.tif

Funding for climate research in the natural and technical sciences versus the social sciences and humanities[59]

Scientific awards are one category of science incentives. Metascience can explore existing and hypothetical systems of science awards. For instance, it found that work honored by Nobel Prizes clustered in only a few scientific fields with only 36/71 having received at least one Nobel Prize. Of the 114/849 domains science could be divided into their DC2 and DC3 classification systems, five were shown to comprise over half of the Nobel Prizes awarded between 1995 and 2017 (particle physics [14%], cell biology [12.1%], atomic physics [10.9%], neuroscience [10.1%], molecular chemistry [5.3%]).[60][61]

A study found that delegation of responsibility by policy-makers – a centralized authority-based top-down approach – for knowledge production and appropriate funding to science with science subsequently somehow delivering "reliable and useful knowledge to society" is too simple.[55]

Measurements show that allocation of bio-medical resources can be more strongly correlated to previous allocations and research than to burden of diseases.[62]

A study suggests that "[i]f peer review is maintained as the primary mechanism of arbitration in the competitive selection of research reports and funding, then the scientific community needs to make sure it is not arbitrary".[46]

Studies indicate there to is a need to "reconsider how we measure success" (see #Factors of success and progress).[45]

Funding data

Funding information from grant databases and funding acknowledgment sections can be sources of data for scientometrics studies, e.g. for investigating or recognition of the impact of funding entities on the development of science and technology.[63]

##### Research questions and coordination

##### Risk governance

### Science communication and public use

Science derives its value as a global public good from two attributes: researchers must make knowledge claims and supporting evidence openly available for scrutiny, and they must communicate results promptly and effectively.[64] Metascientific research is exploring topics of science communication such as media coverage of science, science journalism and online communication of results by science educators and scientists.[65][66][67][68] Research shows that academics view social media primarily for amplifying their work. However, institutions should cultivate a culture emphasizing genuine research engagement over mere visibility.[69] Science communication may also involve the communication of societal needs, concerns and requests to scientists.

#### Alternative metrics tools

Alternative metrics tools can be used not only for help in assessment (performance and impact)[62] and findability, but also aggregate many of the public discussions about a scientific paper in social media such as reddit, citations on Wikipedia, and reports about the study in the news media which can then in turn be analyzed in metascience or provided and used by related tools.[70] In terms of assessment and findability, altmetrics rate publications' performance or impact by the interactions they receive through social media or other online platforms,[71] which can for example be used for sorting recent studies by measured impact, including before other studies are citing them. The specific procedures of established altmetrics are not transparent[71] and the used algorithms can not be customized or altered by the user as open source software can. A study has described various limitations of altmetrics and points "toward avenues for continued research and development".[72] They are also limited in their use as a primary tool for researchers to find received constructive feedback. (see above)

#### Societal implications and applications

It has been suggested that it may benefit science if "intellectual exchange—particularly regarding the societal implications and applications of science and technology—are better appreciated and incentivized in the future".[62]

#### Knowledge integration

Primary studies "without context, comparison or summary are ultimately of limited value" and various types[additional citation(s) needed] of research syntheses and summaries integrate primary studies.[73] Progress in key social-ecological challenges of the global environmental agenda is "hampered by a lack of integration and synthesis of existing scientific evidence", with a "fast-increasing volume of data", compartmentalized information and generally unmet evidence synthesis challenges.[74] According to Khalil, researchers are facing the problem of too many papers – e.g. in March 2014 more than 8,000 papers were submitted to arXiv – and to "keep up with the huge amount of literature, researchers use reference manager software, they make summaries and notes, and they rely on review papers to provide an overview of a particular topic". He notes that review papers are usually (only)" for topics in which many papers were written already, and they can get outdated quickly" and suggests "wiki-review papers" that get continuously updated with new studies on a topic and summarize many studies' results and suggest future research.[75] A study suggests that if a scientific publication is being cited in a Wikipedia article this could potentially be considered as an indicator of some form of impact for this publication,[71] for example as this may, over time, indicate that the reference has contributed to a high-level of summary of the given topic.

#### Science journalism

Science journalists play an important role in the scientific ecosystem and in science communication to the public and need to "know how to use, relevant information when deciding whether to trust a research finding, and whether and how to report on it", vetting the findings that get transmitted to the public.[76]

### Science education

Some studies investigate science education, e.g. the teaching about selected scientific controversies[77] and historical discovery process of major scientific conclusions,[78] and common scientific misconceptions.[79] Education can also be a topic more generally such as how to improve the quality of scientific outputs and reduce the time needed before scientific work or how to enlarge and retain various scientific workforces.

#### Science misconceptions and anti-science attitudes

Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works.[80] Anti-science attitudes and beliefs are also a subject of research.[81][82] Hotez suggests antiscience "has emerged as a dominant and highly lethal force, and one that threatens global security", and that there is a need for "new infrastructure" that mitigates it.[83]

### Evolution of sciences

#### Scientific practice

Number of authors of research articles in six journals through time[40] Trends of diversity of work cited, mean number of self-citations, and mean age of cited work may indicate papers are using "narrower portions of existing knowledge".[84]

Metascience can investigate how scientific processes evolve over time. A study found that teams are growing in size, "increasing by an average of 17% per decade".[62] (see labor advantage below)

ArXiv's yearly submission rate growth over 30 years[85]

It was found that prevalent forms of non-open access publication and prices charged for many conventional journals – even for publicly funded papers – are unwarranted, unnecessary – or suboptimal – and detrimental barriers to scientific progress.[64][86][87][88] Open access can save considerable amounts of financial resources, which could be used otherwise, and level the playing field for researchers in developing countries.[89] There are substantial expenses for subscriptions, gaining access to specific studies, and for article processing charges.  The Business of Scholarship is a documentary on such issues.[90]

Another topic are the established styles of scientific communication (e.g. long text-form studies and reviews) and the scientific publishing practices – there are concerns about a "glacial pace" of conventional publishing.[91] The use of preprint-servers to publish study-drafts early is increasing and open peer review,[92] new tools to screen studies,[93] and improved matching of submitted manuscripts to reviewers[94] are among the proposals to speed up publication.

#### Science overall and intrafield developments

A visualization of scientific outputs by field in OpenAlex.[95]
A study can be part of multiple fields[clarification needed] and lower numbers of papers is not necessarily detrimental[52] for fields. Change of number of scientific papers by field according to OpenAlex[95] Number of PubMed search results for "coronavirus" by year from 1949 to 2020

Metadata from research publications can be extracted, enriched, and made widely accessible through digital tools. OpenAlex is a free online index of over 200 million scientific documents that integrates and provides metadata such as sources, citations, author information, scientific fields and research topics. Its API and open source website can be used for metascience, scientometrics and novel tools that query this semantic web of papers.[96][97][98] Another project under development, Scholia, uses metadata of scientific publications for various visualizations and aggregation features such as providing a simple user interface summarizing literature about a specific feature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus using Wikidata's "main subject" property.[99]

##### Subject-level resolutions

Beyond metadata explicitly assigned to studies by humans, natural language processing and AI can be used to assign research publications to topics – one study investigating the impact of science awards used such to associate a paper's text (not just keywords) with the linguistic content of Wikipedia's scientific topics pages ("pages are created and updated by scientists and users through crowdsourcing"), creating meaningful and plausible classifications of high-fidelity scientific topics for further analysis or navigability.[100]

##### Growth or stagnation of science overall

Rough trend of scholarly publications about biomarkers according to Scholia; biomarker-related publications may not follow closely the number of viable biomarkers.[101] The CD index for papers published in Nature, PNAS, and Science and Nobel-Prize-winning papers[84] The CD index may indicate a "decline of disruptive science and technology".[84]

Metascience research is investigating the growth of science overall, using e.g. data on the number of publications in bibliographic databases. A study found segments with different growth rates appear related to phases of "economic (e.g., industrialization)" – money is considered as necessary input to the science system – "and/or political developments (e.g., Second World War)". It also confirmed a recent exponential growth in the volume of scientific literature and calculated an average doubling period of 17.3 years.[102]

However, others have pointed out that is difficult to measure scientific progress in meaningful ways, partly because it's hard to accurately evaluate how important any given scientific discovery is. A variety of perspectives of the trajectories of science overall (impact, number of major discoveries, etc) have been described in books and articles, including that science is becoming harder (per dollar or hour spent), that if science "slowing today, it is because science has remained too focused on established fields", that papers and patents are increasingly less likely to be "disruptive" in terms of breaking with the past as measured by the "CD index",[84] and that there is a great stagnation – possibly as part of a larger trend[103] – whereby e.g. "things haven't changed nearly as much since the 1970s" when excluding the computer and the Internet.

Understanding potential slowdowns in scientific productivity could present opportunities to accelerate research and address humanity's most pressing challenges.[104] For example, emphasis on citations in the measurement of scientific productivity, information overloads,[103] reliance on a narrower set of existing knowledge (which may include narrow specialization and related contemporary practices) based on three "use of previous knowledge"-indicators,[84] and risk-avoidant funding structures[105] may have "toward incremental science and away from exploratory projects that are more likely to fail".[106] The study that introduced the "CD index" suggests the overall number of papers has risen while the total of "highly disruptive" papers as measured by the index hasn't (notably, the 1998 discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe has a CD index of 0). Their results also suggest scientists and inventors "may be struggling to keep up with the pace of knowledge expansion".[107][84]

To address potential anti-novelty bias, researchers have proposed novelty metrics that measure whether a study makes novel combinations of cited journals while accounting for methodological difficulty.[106] Approaches include textual analysis and comparative bibliographic methods."[106][108] Other approaches include pro-actively funding risky projects.[62] (see above)

### Topic mapping

Science maps could show main interrelated topics within a certain scientific domain, their change over time, and their key actors (researchers, institutions, journals). They may help find factors determine the emergence of new scientific fields and the development of interdisciplinary areas and could be relevant for science policy purposes.[109] (see above) Theories of scientific change could guide "the exploration and interpretation of visualized intellectual structures and dynamic patterns".[110] The maps can show the intellectual, social or conceptual structure of a research field.[111] Beyond visual maps, expert survey-based studies and similar approaches could identify understudied or neglected societally important areas, topic-level problems (such as stigma or dogma), or potential misprioritizations.[additional citation(s) needed] Examples of such are studies about policy in relation to public health[112] and the social science of climate change mitigation[113] where it has been estimated that only 0.12% of all funding for climate-related research is spent on such despite the most urgent puzzle at the current juncture being working out how to mitigate climate change, whereas the natural science of climate change is already well established.[113]

There are also studies that map a scientific field or a topic such as the study of the use of research evidence in policy and practice, partly using surveys.[114]

### Controversies, current debates and disagreement

Percent of all citances in each field that contain signals of disagreement[115]

Some research is investigating scientific controversy or controversies, and may identify currently ongoing major debates (e.g. open questions), and disagreement between scientists or studies.[additional citation(s) needed] One study suggests the level of disagreement was highest in the social sciences and humanities (0.61%), followed by biomedical and health sciences (0.41%), life and earth sciences (0.29%); physical sciences and engineering (0.15%), and mathematics and computer science (0.06%).[115] Such research may also show, where the disagreements are, especially if they cluster, including visually such as with cluster diagrams.

### Challenges of interpretation of pooled results

Studies about a specific research question or research topic are often reviewed in the form of higher-level overviews in which results from various studies are integrated, compared, critically analyzed and interpreted. Examples of such works are scientific reviews and meta-analyses. These and related practices face various challenges and are a subject of metascience.

Various issues with available studies such as, for example, heterogeneity of methods used may lead to faulty conclusions of the meta-analysis.[116]

### Knowledge integration and living documents

Various problems require swift integration of new and existing science-based knowledge. Especially setting where there are a large number of loosely related projects and initiatives benefit from a common ground or "commons".[99]

Evidence synthesis can be applied to important and, notably, both relatively urgent and certain global challenges: "climate change, energy transitions, biodiversity loss, antimicrobial resistance, poverty eradication and so on". It was suggested that a better system would keep summaries of research evidence up to date via living systematic reviews – e.g. as living documents. While the number of scientific papers and data (or information and online knowledge) has risen substantially,[additional citation(s) needed] the number of published academic systematic reviews has risen from "around 6,000 in 2011 to more than 45,000 in 2021".[117] An evidence-based approach is important for progress in science, policy, medical and other practices. For example, meta-analyses can quantify what is known and identify what is not yet known[73] and place "truly innovative and highly interdisciplinary ideas" into the context of established knowledge which may enhance their impact.[62] (see above)

### Factors of success and progress

It has been hypothesized that a deeper understanding of factors behind successful science could "enhance prospects of science as a whole to more effectively address societal problems".[62][20]

#### Novel ideas and disruptive scholarship

Two metascientists reported that "structures fostering disruptive scholarship and focusing attention on novel ideas" could be important as in a growing scientific field citation flows disproportionately consolidate to already well-cited papers, possibly slowing and inhibiting canonical progress.[118][119] A study concluded that to enhance impact of truly innovative and highly interdisciplinary novel ideas, they should be placed in the context of established knowledge.[62]

#### Mentorship, partnerships and social factors

Other researchers reported that the most successful – in terms of "likelihood of prizewinning, National Academy of Science (NAS) induction, or superstardom" – protégés studied under mentors who published research for which they were conferred a prize after the protégés' mentorship. Studying original topics rather than these mentors' research-topics was also positively associated with success.[120][121] Highly productive partnerships are also a topic of research – e.g. "super-ties" of frequent co-authorship of two individuals who can complement skills, likely also the result of other factors such as mutual trust, conviction, commitment and fun.[122][62]

#### Study of successful scientists and processes, general skills and activities

The emergence or origin of ideas by successful scientists is also a topic of research, for example reviewing existing ideas on how Mendel made his discoveries,[123] – or more generally, the process of discovery by scientists. Scientific discovery is fundamentally collaborative, involving the appropriation, modification, and combination of existing ideas rather than isolated innovation.[62] Few studies examine the cognitive processes, information practices, and digital workflows that characterize productive researchers.[124][125][126][127][128]

#### Labor advantage

A study theorized that in many disciplines, larger scientific productivity or success by elite universities can be explained by their larger pool of available funded laborers.[129][130] The study found that university prestige was only associated with higher productivity for faculty with group members, not for faculty publishing alone or the group members themselves. This is presented as evidence that the outsize productivity of elite researchers is not from a more rigorous selection of talent by top universities, but from labor advantages accrued through greater access to funding and the attraction of prestige to graduate and postdoctoral researchers.

#### Ultimate impacts

Success in science (as indicated in tenure review processes) is often measured in terms of metrics like citations, not in terms of the eventual or potential impact on lives and society,[131] which awards (see above) sometimes do. Problems with such metrics are roughly outlined elsewhere in this article and include that reviews replace citations to primary studies.[73] There are also proposals for changes to the academic incentives systems that increase the recognition of societal impact in the research process.[132]

#### Progress studies

A proposed field of "Progress Studies" could investigate how scientists (or funders or evaluators of scientists) should be acting, "figuring out interventions" and study progress itself.[133] The field was explicitly proposed in a 2019 essay and described as an applied science that prescribes action.[134]

#### As and for acceleration of progress

A study suggests that improving the way science is done could accelerate the rate of scientific discovery and its applications which could be useful for finding urgent solutions to humanity's problems, improve humanity's conditions, and enhance understanding of nature. Metascientific studies can seek to identify aspects of science that need improvement, and develop ways to improve them.[75] If science is accepted as the fundamental engine of economic growth and social progress, this could raise "the question of what we – as a society – can do to accelerate science, and to direct science toward solving society's most important problems."[135] One author clarified that funding science requires diverse approaches rather than a single model. DARPA models, curiosity-driven research, peer-champion mechanisms, and other approaches each have merit and application in different contexts. Nevertheless, evaluation of them can help build knowledge of what works or works best.[105]

## Reforms

Meta-research identifying flaws in scientific practice has inspired reforms in science. These reforms seek to address and fix problems in scientific practice which lead to low-quality or inefficient research.

A 2015 study lists "fragmented" efforts in meta-research.[1]

### Pre-registration

The practice of registering a scientific study before it is conducted is called pre-registration. It arose as a means to address the replication crisis. Pregistration requires the submission of a registered report, which is then accepted for publication or rejected by a journal based on theoretical justification, experimental design, and the proposed statistical analysis. Pre-registration of studies serves to prevent publication bias (e.g. not publishing negative results), reduce data dredging, and increase replicability.[136][137]

### Reporting standards

Studies showing poor consistency and quality of reporting have demonstrated the need for reporting standards and guidelines in science, which has led to the rise of organisations that produce such standards, such as CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and the EQUATOR Network.

The EQUATOR network (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research)[138] is an international initiative that develops and promotes reporting guidelines for health research to improve the quality and reliability of medical literature.[139] The EQUATOR Network was established with the goals of raising awareness of the importance of good reporting of research, assisting in the development, dissemination and implementation of reporting guidelines for different types of study designs, monitoring the status of the quality of reporting of research studies in the health sciences literature, and conducting research relating to issues that impact the quality of reporting of health research studies.[140] The Network acts as an "umbrella" organisation, bringing together developers of reporting guidelines, medical journal editors and peer reviewers, research funding bodies, and other key stakeholders with a mutual interest in improving the quality of research publications and research itself.

## Applications

### Information and communications technologies

Metascience is used in the creation and improvement of technical systems (ICTs) and standards of science evaluation, incentivation, communication, commissioning, funding, regulation, production, management, use and publication. Such can be called "applied metascience"[141] and may seek to explore ways to increase quantity, quality and positive impact of research. One example for such is the development of alternative metrics.[62]

#### Study screening and feedback

Various websites or tools also identify inappropriate studies and/or enable feedback such as PubPeer, Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool[142] and RetractionWatch. Medical and academic disputes are as ancient as antiquity and a study calls for research into "constructive and obsessive criticism" and into policies to "help strengthen social media into a vibrant forum for discussion, and not merely an arena for gladiator matches".[143] Feedback to studies can be found via altmetrics which is often integrated at the website of the study – most often as an embedded Altmetrics badge – but may often be incomplete, such as only showing social media discussions that link to the study directly but not those that link to news reports about the study. (see above)

#### Tools used, modified, extended or investigated

Tools may get developed with metaresearch or can be used or investigated by such. Notable examples may include:

* Search engines like Google Scholar are used to find studies and the notification service Google Alerts enables notifications for new studies matching specified search terms. Scholarly communication infrastructure includes search databases.[144]
* Shadow library Sci-hub is a topic of metascience[145]
* Personal knowledge management systems for research-, knowledge- and task management, such as saving information in organized ways[146] with multi-document text editors for future use[147][148] Such systems could be described as part of, along with e.g. Web browser (tabs-addons[149] etc) and search software,[additional citation(s) needed] "mind-machine partnerships" that could be investigated by metascience for how they could improve science.[62]
* Scholia – efforts to open scholarly publication metadata and use it via Wikidata.[150] (see above)
* Various software enables common metascientific practices such as bibliometric analysis.[151]

#### Development

According to a study "a simple way to check how often studies have been repeated, and whether or not the original findings are confirmed" is needed due to reproducibility issues in science.[152][153] A study suggests a tool for screening studies for early warning signs for research fraud.[154]

### Medicine

Clinical research in medicine is often of low quality, and many studies cannot be replicated.[155][156] An estimated 85% of research funding is wasted.[157] Additionally, the presence of bias affects research quality.[158] The pharmaceutical industry exerts substantial influence on the design and execution of medical research. Conflicts of interest are common among authors of medical literature[159] and among editors of medical journals. While almost all medical journals require their authors to disclose conflicts of interest, editors are not required to do so.[160] Financial conflicts of interest have been linked to higher rates of positive study results. In antidepressant trials, pharmaceutical sponsorship is the best predictor of trial outcome.[161]

Blinding is another focus of meta-research, as error caused by poor blinding is a source of experimental bias. Blinding is not well reported in medical literature, and widespread misunderstanding of the subject has resulted in poor implementation of blinding in clinical trials.[162] Furthermore, failure of blinding is rarely measured or reported.[163] Research showing the failure of blinding in antidepressant trials has led some scientists to argue that antidepressants are no better than placebo.[164][165] In light of meta-research showing failures of blinding, CONSORT standards recommend that all clinical trials assess and report the quality of blinding.[166]

Studies have shown that systematic reviews of existing research evidence are sub-optimally used in planning a new research or summarizing the results.[167] Cumulative meta-analyses of studies evaluating the effectiveness of medical interventions have shown that many clinical trials could have been avoided if a systematic review of existing evidence was done prior to conducting a new trial.[168][169][170] For example, Lau et al.[168] analyzed 33 clinical trials (involving 36974 patients) evaluating the effectiveness of intravenous streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. Their cumulative meta-analysis demonstrated that 25 of 33 trials could have been avoided if a systematic review was conducted prior to conducting a new trial. In other words, randomizing 34542 patients was potentially unnecessary. One study[171] analyzed 1523 clinical trials included in 227 meta-analyses and concluded that "less than one quarter of relevant prior studies" were cited. They also confirmed earlier findings that most clinical trial reports do not present systematic review to justify the research or summarize the results.[171]

Many treatments used in modern medicine have been proven to be ineffective, or even harmful. A 2007 study by John Ioannidis found that it took an average of ten years for the medical community to stop referencing popular practices after their efficacy was unequivocally disproven.[172][173]

### Psychology

Metascience has revealed significant problems in psychological research. The field suffers from high bias, low reproducibility, and widespread misuse of statistics.[174][175][176] The replication crisis affects psychology more strongly than any other field; as many as two-thirds of highly publicized findings may be impossible to replicate.[177] Meta-research finds that 80-95% of psychological studies support their initial hypotheses, which strongly implies the existence of publication bias.[178]

The replication crisis has led to renewed efforts to re-test important findings.[179][180] In response to concerns about publication bias and p-hacking, more than 140 psychology journals have adopted result-blind peer review, in which studies are pre-registered and published without regard for their outcome.[181] An analysis of these reforms estimated that 61 percent of result-blind studies produce null results, in contrast with 5 to 20 percent in earlier research. This analysis shows that result-blind peer review substantially reduces publication bias.[178]

Psychologists routinely confuse statistical significance with practical importance, enthusiastically reporting great certainty in unimportant facts.[182] Some psychologists have responded with an increased use of effect size statistics, rather than sole reliance on the p values.

### Physics

Richard Feynman noted that estimates of physical constants were closer to published values than would be expected by chance. This was believed to be the result of confirmation bias: results that agreed with existing literature were more likely to be believed, and therefore published. Physicists now implement blinding to prevent this kind of bias.[183]

### Computer Science

Web measurement studies are essential for understanding the workings of the modern Web, particularly in the fields of security and privacy. However, these studies often require custom-built or modified crawling setups, leading to a plethora of analysis tools for similar tasks. In a paper by Nurullah Demir et al., the authors surveyed 117 recent research papers to derive best practices for Web-based measurement studies and establish criteria for reproducibility and replicability. They found that experimental setups and other critical information for reproducing and replicating results are often missing. In a large-scale Web measurement study on 4.5 million pages with 24 different measurement setups, the authors demonstrated the impact of slight differences in experimental setups on the overall results, emphasizing the need for accurate and comprehensive documentation.[184]

## Organizations and institutes

There are several organizations and universities across the globe which work on meta-research – these include the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Berlin,[185] the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford,[186][187] the Meta-Research Center at Tilburg University, the Meta-research & Evidence Synthesis Unit, The George Institute for Global Health at India and Center for Open Science. Organizations that develop tools for metascience include OurResearch, Center for Scientific Integrity and altmetrics companies. There is an annual Metascience Conference hosted by the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science (AIMOS) and biannual conference hosted by the Centre for Open Science.[188][189]

## See also

* Accelerating change
* Basic research
* Citation analysis
* Epistemology
* Evidence-based practices
* Evidence-based medicine
* Evidence-based policy
* Further research is needed
* HARKing
* Metadata § Science
* Metatheory
* Open science
* Philosophy of science
* Science of science policy
* Sociology of scientific knowledge
* Self-Organized Funding Allocation

## References

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Ioannidis, John P. A.; Fanelli, Daniele; Dunne, Debbie Drake; Goodman, Steven N. (2 October 2015). "Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices". PLOS Biology 13 (10). doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264. ISSN 1544-9173. PMID 26431313.
2. ↑ Bach, Becky (8 December 2015). "On communicating science and uncertainty: A podcast with John Ioannidis". https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2015/12/08/on-communicating-science-and-uncertainty-a-podcast-with-john-ioannidis/.
3. ↑ Schor, Stanley; Karten, Irving (March 28, 1966). "Statistical Evaluation of Medical Journal Manuscripts" (in en). Journal of the American Medical Association 195 (13): 1123–1128. doi:10.1001/jama.1966.03100130097026. PMID 5952081. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/658800.
4. ↑ Pashler, Harold; Harris, Christine R. (2012). "Is the Replicability Crisis Overblown? Three Arguments Examined" (in en). Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (6): 531–536. doi:10.1177/1745691612463401. ISSN 1745-6916. PMID 26168109. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612463401.
5. ↑ Nishikawa-Pacher, Andreas; Heck, Tamara; Schoch, Kerstin (4 October 2022). "Open Editors: A dataset of scholarly journals' editorial board positions". Research Evaluation 32 (2): 228–243. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvac037. ISSN 0958-2029.
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Ioannidis, JP (August 2005). "Why most published research findings are false.". PLOS Medicine 2 (8). doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. PMID 16060722.
7. ↑ Schor, Stanley (1966). "Statistical Evaluation of Medical Journal Manuscripts". JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 195 (13): 1123–1128. doi:10.1001/jama.1966.03100130097026. ISSN 0098-7484. PMID 5952081.
8. ↑ Comroe, Julius; Comroe, Robert (1976). "Scientific Basis for the Support of Biomedical Science.". Science 192 (4235): 105–11. doi:10.1126/science.769161. PMID 769161. Bibcode: 1976Sci...192..105C.
9. ↑ "Highly Cited Researchers". http://highlycited.com/.
10. ↑ Medicine - Stanford Prevention Research Center. John P.A. Ioannidis
11. ↑ Robert Lee Hotz (September 14, 2007). "Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis". Wall Street Journal (Dow Jones & Company). https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118972683557627104.
12. ↑ Howick J, Koletsi D, Pandis N, Fleming PS, Loef M, Walach H, Schmidt S, Ioannidis JA. The quality of evidence for medical interventions does not improve or worsen: a metaepidemiological study of Cochrane reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2020;126:154–159 [1]
13. ↑ "Researching the researchers". Nature Genetics 46 (5): 417. 2014. doi:10.1038/ng.2972. ISSN 1061-4036. PMID 24769715.
14. ↑ Enserink, Martin (2018). "Research on research". Science 361 (6408): 1178–1179. doi:10.1126/science.361.6408.1178. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 30237336. Bibcode: 2018Sci...361.1178E.
15. ↑ Rennie, Drummond (1990). "Editorial Peer Review in Biomedical Publication". JAMA 263 (10): 1317–1441. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100011001. ISSN 0098-7484. PMID 2304208.
16. ↑ Harriman, Stephanie L.; Kowalczuk, Maria K.; Simera, Iveta; Wager, Elizabeth (2016). "A new forum for research on research integrity and peer review". Research Integrity and Peer Review 1 (1): 5. doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0010-y. ISSN 2058-8615. PMID 29451544.
17. ↑ "Metascience can improve science — but it must be useful to society, too". Nature 643 (8028). 2025. doi:10.1038/d41586-025-02065-0. PMID 40629126. Bibcode: 2025Natur.643..304..
18. ↑ Fanelli, Daniele; Costas, Rodrigo; Ioannidis, John P. A. (2017). "Meta-assessment of bias in science". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (14): 3714–3719. doi:10.1073/pnas.1618569114. ISSN 1091-6490. PMID 28320937. Bibcode: 2017PNAS..114.3714F.
19. ↑ Check Hayden, Erika (2013). "Weak statistical standards implicated in scientific irreproducibility" (in en). Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2013.14131. https://www.nature.com/news/weak-statistical-standards-implicated-in-scientific-irreproducibility-1.14131. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Krauss, A (2024). Science of Science: Understanding the Foundations and Limits of Science from an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/9780198937401.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-893740-1.
21. ↑ Markowitz, David M.; Hancock, Jeffrey T. (2016). "Linguistic obfuscation in fraudulent science". Journal of Language and Social Psychology 35 (4): 435–445. doi:10.1177/0261927X15614605.
22. ↑ Ding, Y. (2010). "Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 (2): 236–245. doi:10.1002/asi.21452.
23. ↑ Galipeau, James; Moher, David; Campbell, Craig; Hendry, Paul; Cameron, D. William; Palepu, Anita; Hébert, Paul C. (March 2015). "A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology" (in en). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 68 (3): 257–265. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.024. PMID 25510373.
24. ↑ Wilson, Mitch; Moher, David (March 2019). "The Changing Landscape of Journalology in Medicine" (in en). Seminars in Nuclear Medicine 49 (2): 105–114. doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.11.009. PMID 30819390.
25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Couzin-Frankel, Jennifer (18 September 2018). "'Journalologists' use scientific methods to study academic publishing. Is their work improving science?". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aav4758.
26. ↑ Schooler, J. W. (2014). "Metascience could rescue the 'replication crisis'". Nature 515 (7525): 9. doi:10.1038/515009a. PMID 25373639. Bibcode: 2014Natur.515....9S.
27. ↑ Smith, Noah (2 November 2017). "Why 'Statistical Significance' Is Often Insignificant". Bloomberg.com. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-02/why-statistical-significance-is-often-insignificant.
28. ↑ Pashler, Harold; Wagenmakers, Eric Jan (2012). "Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?". Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (6): 528–530. doi:10.1177/1745691612465253. PMID 26168108.
29. ↑ Gary Marcus (May 1, 2013). "The Crisis in Social Psychology That Isn't". The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-crisis-in-social-psychology-that-isnt.
30. ↑ Jonah Lehrer (December 13, 2010). "The Truth Wears Off". The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off.
31. ↑ "Dozens of major cancer studies can't be replicated". Science News. 7 December 2021. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cancer-biology-studies-research-replication-reproducibility.
32. ↑ "Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology" (in en). Center for Open Science. https://www.cos.io/rpcb.
33. ↑ Staddon, John (2017) Scientific Method: How science works, fails to work or pretends to work. Taylor and Francis.
34. ↑ Yeung, Andy W. K. (2017). "Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature" (in en). Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 11. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00468. ISSN 1662-5161. PMID 28979201.
35. ↑ Martin, G. N.; Clarke, Richard M. (2017). "Are Psychology Journals Anti-replication? A Snapshot of Editorial Practices" (in en). Frontiers in Psychology 8: 523. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00523. ISSN 1664-1078. PMID 28443044.
36. ↑ Binswanger, Mathias (2015). "How Nonsense Became Excellence: Forcing Professors to Publish". in Welpe, Isabell M.; Wollersheim, Jutta; Ringelhan, Stefanie et al. (in en). Incentives and Performance: Governance of Research Organizations. Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–32. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_2. ISBN 978-3-319-09785-5.
37. ↑ Edwards, Marc A.; Roy, Siddhartha (2016-09-22). "Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition". Environmental Engineering Science 34 (1): 51–61. doi:10.1089/ees.2016.0223. PMID 28115824.
38. ↑ Brookshire, Bethany (21 October 2016). "Blame bad incentives for bad science" (in en). https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/blame-bad-incentives-bad-science.
39. ↑ Smaldino, Paul E.; McElreath, Richard (2016). "The natural selection of bad science" (in en). Royal Society Open Science 3 (9). doi:10.1098/rsos.160384. PMID 27703703. Bibcode: 2016RSOS....360384S.
40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 Chapman, Colin A.; Bicca-Marques, Júlio César; Calvignac-Spencer, Sébastien; Fan, Pengfei; Fashing, Peter J.; Gogarten, Jan; Guo, Songtao; Hemingway, Claire A. et al. (4 December 2019). "Games academics play and their consequences: how authorship, h -index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia" (in en). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 286 (1916). doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.2047. ISSN 0962-8452. PMID 31797732.
41. ↑ Holcombe, Alex O. (September 2019). "Contributorship, Not Authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who Did What" (in en). Publications 7 (3): 48. doi:10.3390/publications7030048.
42. ↑ McNutt, Marcia K.; Bradford, Monica; Drazen, Jeffrey M.; Hanson, Brooks; Howard, Bob; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall; Kiermer, Véronique; Marcus, Emilie et al. (13 March 2018). "Transparency in authors' contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication" (in en). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (11): 2557–2560. doi:10.1073/pnas.1715374115. ISSN 0027-8424. PMID 29487213. Bibcode: 2018PNAS..115.2557M.
43. ↑ Brand, Amy; Allen, Liz; Altman, Micah; Hlava, Marjorie; Scott, Jo (1 April 2015). "Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit". Learned Publishing 28 (2): 151–155. doi:10.1087/20150211. Bibcode: 2015LePub..28..151B. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274098676.
44. ↑ Singh Chawla, Dalmeet (October 2015). "Digital badges aim to clear up politics of authorship" (in en). Nature 526 (7571): 145–146. doi:10.1038/526145a. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 26432249. Bibcode: 2015Natur.526..145S.
45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 45.2 Fire, Michael; Guestrin, Carlos (1 June 2019). "Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart's Law in action". GigaScience 8 (6). doi:10.1093/gigascience/giz053. PMID 31144712.
46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 Elson, Malte; Huff, Markus; Utz, Sonja (1 March 2020). "Metascience on Peer Review: Testing the Effects of a Study's Originality and Statistical Significance in a Field Experiment" (in en). Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 3 (1): 53–65. doi:10.1177/2515245919895419. ISSN 2515-2459. https://psyarxiv.com/gyds8/.
47. ↑ McLean, Robert K D; Sen, Kunal (1 April 2019). "Making a difference in the real world? A meta-analysis of the quality of use-oriented research using the Research Quality Plus approach". Research Evaluation 28 (2): 123–135. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvy026.
48. ↑ "Bringing Rigor to Relevant Questions: How Social Science Research Can Improve Youth Outcomes in the Real World". http://wtgrantfoundation.org/library/uploads/2017/05/How-Social-Science-Research-Can-Improve-Youth-Outcomes_WTG2017.pdf.
49. ↑ Fecher, Benedikt; Friesike, Sascha; Hebing, Marcel; Linek, Stephanie (20 June 2017). "A reputation economy: how individual reward considerations trump systemic arguments for open access to data" (in en). Palgrave Communications 3 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2017.51. ISSN 2055-1045.
50. ↑ La Porta, Caterina AM; Zapperi, Stefano (1 December 2022). "America's top universities reap the benefit of Italian-trained scientists" (in en). Nature Italy. doi:10.1038/d43978-022-00163-5. https://www.nature.com/articles/d43978-022-00163-5. Retrieved 18 December 2022.
51. ↑ Leydesdorff, L. and Milojevic, S., "Scientometrics" arXiv:1208.4566 (2013), forthcoming in: Lynch, M. (editor), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences subsection 85030. (2015)
52. ↑ 52.0 52.1 Singh, Navinder (8 October 2021). "Plea to publish less". arXiv:2201.07985 [physics.soc-ph].
53. ↑ Manchanda, Saurav; Karypis, George (November 2021). "Evaluating Scholarly Impact: Towards Content-Aware Bibliometrics". Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 6041–6053. doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.488.
54. ↑ Manchanda, Saurav; Karypis, George. "Importance Assessment in Scholarly Networks". http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2831/paper17.pdf.
55. ↑ 55.0 55.1 Nielsen, Kristian H. (1 March 2021). "Science and public policy" (in en). Metascience 30 (1): 79–81. doi:10.1007/s11016-020-00581-5. ISSN 1467-9981.
56. ↑ Bostrom, Nick (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 229–237. ISBN 978-0-19-967811-2.
57. ↑ Ord, Toby (2020). The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 200. ISBN 978-1-5266-0021-9.
58. ↑ "Technology is changing faster than regulators can keep up - here's how to close the gap" (in en). 21 June 2018. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/law-too-slow-for-new-tech-how-keep-up/.
59. ↑ Overland, Indra; Sovacool, Benjamin K. (1 April 2020). "The misallocation of climate research funding" (in en). Energy Research & Social Science 62. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2019.101349. ISSN 2214-6296. Bibcode: 2020ERSS...6201349O.
60. ↑ "Nobel prize-winning work is concentrated in minority of scientific fields" (in en). phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2020-07-nobel-prize-winning-minority-scientific-fields.html.
61. ↑ Ioannidis, John P. A.; Cristea, Ioana-Alina; Boyack, Kevin W. (29 July 2020). "Work honored by Nobel prizes clusters heavily in a few scientific fields" (in en). PLOS ONE 15 (7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0234612. ISSN 1932-6203. PMID 32726312. Bibcode: 2020PLoSO..1534612I.
62. ↑ 62.00 62.01 62.02 62.03 62.04 62.05 62.06 62.07 62.08 62.09 62.10 62.11 Fortunato, Santo; Bergstrom, Carl T.; Börner, Katy; Evans, James A.; Helbing, Dirk; Milojević, Staša; Petersen, Alexander M.; Radicchi, Filippo et al. (2 March 2018). "Science of science". Science 359 (6379). doi:10.1126/science.aao0185. PMID 29496846. PMC 5949209. Bibcode: 2018Sci...359o0185F. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323502497. Retrieved 22 November 2021.
63. ↑ Fajardo-Ortiz, David; Hornbostel, Stefan; Montenegro de Wit, Maywa; Shattuck, Annie (22 June 2022). "Funding CRISPR: Understanding the role of government and philanthropic institutions in supporting academic research within the CRISPR innovation system". Quantitative Science Studies 3 (2): 443–456. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00187.
64. ↑ 64.0 64.1 "Science as a Global Public Good". 8 October 2021. https://council.science/current/news/science-as-a-global-public-good/.
65. ↑ Jamieson, Kathleen Hall; Kahan, Dan; Scheufele, Dietram A. (17 May 2017) (in en). The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-049763-7. https://books.google.com/books?id=hSgmDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA51.
66. ↑ Grochala, Rafał (16 December 2019). "Science communication in online media: influence of press releases on coverage of genetics and CRISPR". bioRxiv 10.1101/2019.12.13.875278.
67. ↑ G. Manickam Govindaraju; Kalei Joethi Sahadevan; Tan Poh Ling (February 2019). "Framing Analysis of News Coverage on Renewable Energy in the Star Online News Portal". Journal of Engineering Science and Technology. http://jestec.taylors.edu.my/Special Issue on SU18/SU18_04.pdf. Retrieved 22 November 2021.
68. ↑ MacLaughlin, Ansel; Wihbey, John; Smith, David (15 June 2018). "Predicting News Coverage of Scientific Articles" (in en). Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 12 (1). doi:10.1609/icwsm.v12i1.14999. ISSN 2334-0770. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/14999.
69. ↑ Carrigan, Mark; Jordan, Katy (4 November 2021). "Platforms and Institutions in the Post-Pandemic University: a Case Study of Social Media and the Impact Agenda" (in en). Postdigital Science and Education 4 (2): 354–372. doi:10.1007/s42438-021-00269-x. ISSN 2524-4868. PMID 40477436.
70. ↑ Baykoucheva, Svetla (2015). "Measuring attention". Managing Scientific Information and Research Data: 127–136. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-100195-0.00014-7. ISBN 978-0-08-100195-0. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280568406.
71. ↑ 71.0 71.1 71.2 Zagorova, Olga; Ulloa, Roberto; Weller, Katrin; Flöck, Fabian (12 April 2022). ""I updated the <ref>": The evolution of references in the English Wikipedia and the implications for altmetrics". Quantitative Science Studies 3 (1): 147–173. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00171.
72. ↑ Williams, Ann E. (12 June 2017). "Altmetrics: an overview and evaluation". Online Information Review 41 (3): 311–317. doi:10.1108/OIR-10-2016-0294.
73. ↑ 73.0 73.1 73.2 Gurevitch, Jessica; Koricheva, Julia; Nakagawa, Shinichi; Stewart, Gavin (March 2018). "Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis" (in en). Nature 555 (7695): 175–182. doi:10.1038/nature25753. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 29517004. Bibcode: 2018Natur.555..175G.
74. ↑ Balbi, Stefano; Bagstad, Kenneth J.; Magrach, Ainhoa; Sanz, Maria Jose; Aguilar-Amuchastegui, Naikoa; Giupponi, Carlo; Villa, Ferdinando (17 February 2022). "The global environmental agenda urgently needs a semantic web of knowledge" (in en). Environmental Evidence 11 (1): 5. doi:10.1186/s13750-022-00258-y. ISSN 2047-2382. PMID 39294723. Bibcode: 2022EnvEv..11....5B.
75. ↑ 75.0 75.1 Khalil, Mohammed M. (2016). "Improving Science for a Better Future" (in en). How Should Humanity Steer the Future?. The Frontiers Collection. Springer International Publishing. pp. 113–126. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20717-9_11. ISBN 978-3-319-20716-2.
76. ↑ Bottesini, Julia G.; Aschwanden, Christie; Rhemtulla, Mijke; Vazire, Simine. How Do Science Journalists Evaluate Psychology Research?. https://psyarxiv.com/26kr3/.
77. ↑ Dunlop, Lynda; Veneu, Fernanda (1 September 2019). "Controversies in Science" (in en). Science & Education 28 (6): 689–710. doi:10.1007/s11191-019-00048-y. ISSN 1573-1901. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/146183/1/LD_final_edits.docx.
78. ↑ Norsen, Travis (2016). "Back to the Future: Crowdsourcing Innovation by Refocusing Science Education". How Should Humanity Steer the Future?. The Frontiers Collection. pp. 85–95. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20717-9_9. ISBN 978-3-319-20716-2.
79. ↑ Bschir, Karim (July 2021). "How to make sense of science: Mano Singham: The great paradox of science: why its conclusions can be relied upon even though they cannot be proven. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019, 332 pp, £ 22.99 HB". Metascience 30 (2): 327–330. doi:10.1007/s11016-021-00654-z.
80. ↑ "Correcting misconceptions - Understanding Science". 21 April 2022. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/for-educators/prepare-and-plan/correcting-misconceptions/.
81. ↑ Philipp-Muller, Aviva; Lee, Spike W. S.; Petty, Richard E. (26 July 2022). "Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?" (in en). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (30). doi:10.1073/pnas.2120755119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMID 35858405. Bibcode: 2022PNAS..11920755P.
82. ↑ "The 4 bases of anti-science beliefs – and what to do about them". 11 July 2022. https://scienmag.com/the-4-bases-of-anti-science-beliefs-and-what-to-do-about-them/.
83. ↑ Hotez, Peter J.. "The Antiscience Movement Is Escalating, Going Global and Killing Thousands" (in en). https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-antiscience-movement-is-escalating-going-global-and-killing-thousands/.
84. ↑ 84.0 84.1 84.2 84.3 84.4 84.5 Park, Michael; Leahey, Erin; Funk, Russell J. (January 2023). "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time" (in en). Nature 613 (7942): 138–144. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 36600070. Bibcode: 2023Natur.613..138P.
85. ↑ Ginsparg, Paul (September 2021). "Lessons from arXiv's 30 years of information sharing" (in en). Nature Reviews Physics 3 (9): 602–603. doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00360-z. PMID 34377944. Bibcode: 2021NatRP...3..602G.
86. ↑ "Nature Journals To Charge Authors Hefty Fee To Make Scientific Papers Open Access" (in en). IFLScience. https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/nature-journals-to-charge-authors-hefty-fee-to-make-scientific-papers-open-access/.
87. ↑ "Harvard University says it can't afford journal publishers' prices" (in en). The Guardian. 24 April 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices.
88. ↑ Van Noorden, Richard (1 March 2013). "Open access: The true cost of science publishing" (in en). Nature 495 (7442): 426–429. doi:10.1038/495426a. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 23538808. Bibcode: 2013Natur.495..426V.
89. ↑ Tennant, Jonathan P.; Waldner, François; Jacques, Damien C.; Masuzzo, Paola; Collister, Lauren B.; Hartgerink, Chris. H. J. (21 September 2016). "The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review". F1000Research 5: 632. doi:10.12688/f1000research.8460.3. PMID 27158456.
90. ↑ "Paywall: The business of scholarship review – analysis of a scandal". New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2181744-paywall-the-business-of-scholarship-review-analysis-of-a-scandal/.
91. ↑ Powell, Kendall (1 February 2016). "Does it take too long to publish research?" (in en). Nature 530 (7589): 148–151. doi:10.1038/530148a. PMID 26863966. Bibcode: 2016Natur.530..148P.
92. ↑ "Open peer review: bringing transparency, accountability, and inclusivity to the peer review process". 13 September 2017. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/09/13/open-peer-review-bringing-transparency-accountability-and-inclusivity-to-the-peer-review-process/.
93. ↑ Dattani, Saloni. "The Pandemic Uncovered Ways to Speed Up Science". Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-open-science-public-health-data/. Retrieved 28 January 2023.
94. ↑ "Speeding up the publication process at PLOS ONE". 13 May 2019. https://everyone.plos.org/2019/05/13/publication_timings_2019/.
95. ↑ 95.0 95.1 "Open Alex Data Evolution". 8 February 2022. https://observablehq.com/@napsternxg/open-alex-data-evolution.
96. ↑ Singh Chawla, Dalmeet (24 January 2022). "Massive open index of scholarly papers launches" (in en). Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00138-y. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00138-y.
97. ↑ "OpenAlex: The Promising Alternative to Microsoft Academic Graph" (in en). Singapore Management University (SMU). https://library.smu.edu.sg/topics-insights/openalex-promising-alternative-microsoft-academic-graph.
98. ↑ "OpenAlex Documentation". https://docs.openalex.org/.
99. ↑ 99.0 99.1 Waagmeester, Andra; Willighagen, Egon L.; Su, Andrew I.; Kutmon, Martina; Gayo, Jose Emilio Labra; Fernández-Álvarez, Daniel; Groom, Quentin; Schaap, Peter J. et al. (22 January 2021). "A protocol for adding knowledge to Wikidata: aligning resources on human coronaviruses". BMC Biology 19 (1): 12. doi:10.1186/s12915-020-00940-y. ISSN 1741-7007. PMID 33482803.
100. ↑ Jin, Ching; Ma, Yifang; Uzzi, Brian (5 October 2021). "Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics" (in en). Nature Communications 12 (1): 5619. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25712-2. ISSN 2041-1723. PMID 34611161. Bibcode: 2021NatCo..12.5619J.
101. ↑ "Scholia – biomarker". https://scholia.toolforge.org/chemical-class/Q864574#publications-per-year.
102. ↑ Bornmann, Lutz; Haunschild, Robin; Mutz, Rüdiger (7 October 2021). "Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases" (in en). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w. ISSN 2662-9992.
103. ↑ 103.0 103.1 Thompson, Derek (1 December 2021). "America Is Running on Fumes" (in en). https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/america-innovation-film-science-business/620858/.
104. ↑ Collison, Patrick; Nielsen, Michael (16 November 2018). "Science Is Getting Less Bang for Its Buck" (in en). https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/diminishing-returns-science/575665/.
105. ↑ 105.0 105.1 "How to escape scientific stagnation". The Economist. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/10/26/how-to-escape-scientific-stagnation.
106. ↑ 106.0 106.1 106.2 Bhattacharya, Jay; Packalen, Mikko (February 2020). Stagnation and Scientific Incentives. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26752/w26752.pdf.
107. ↑ Tejada, Patricia Contreras (13 January 2023). "With fewer disruptive studies, is science becoming an echo chamber?". Advanced Science News. https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/with-fewer-disruptive-studies-is-science-becoming-an-echo-chamber/.
108. ↑ Wang, Jian; Veugelers, Reinhilde; Stephan, Paula (1 October 2017). "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators" (in en). Research Policy 46 (8): 1416–1436. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.006. ISSN 0048-7333. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/590071.
109. ↑ Petrovich, Eugenio (2020). "Science mapping". https://www.isko.org/cyclo/science_mapping#9.
110. ↑ Chen, Chaomei (21 March 2017). "Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature". Journal of Data and Information Science 2 (2): 1–40. doi:10.1515/jdis-2017-0006. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313991204.
111. ↑ Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M.; Martínez, M. Ángeles; Moral-Munoz, J. A.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Cobo, M. J. (1 May 2018). "Some bibliometric procedures for analyzing and evaluating research fields" (in en). Applied Intelligence 48 (5): 1275–1287. doi:10.1007/s10489-017-1105-y. ISSN 1573-7497.
112. ↑ Navarro, V. (31 March 2008). "Politics and health: a neglected area of research". The European Journal of Public Health 18 (4): 354–355. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn040. PMID 18524802.
113. ↑ 113.0 113.1 Overland, Indra; Sovacool, Benjamin K. (1 April 2020). "The misallocation of climate research funding" (in en). Energy Research & Social Science 62. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2019.101349. ISSN 2214-6296. Bibcode: 2020ERSS...6201349O.
114. ↑ Farley-Ripple, Elizabeth N.; Oliver, Kathryn; Boaz, Annette (7 September 2020). "Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice" (in en). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 7 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00571-2. ISSN 2662-9992.
115. ↑ 115.0 115.1 Lamers, Wout S; Boyack, Kevin; Larivière, Vincent; Sugimoto, Cassidy R; van Eck, Nees Jan; Waltman, Ludo; Murray, Dakota (24 December 2021). "Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature". eLife 10. doi:10.7554/eLife.72737. ISSN 2050-084X. PMID 34951588.
116. ↑ Stone, Dianna L.; Rosopa, Patrick J. (1 March 2017). "The Advantages and Limitations of Using Meta-analysis in Human Resource Management Research" (in en). Human Resource Management Review 27 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.001. ISSN 1053-4822.
117. ↑ Elliott, Julian; Lawrence, Rebecca; Minx, Jan C.; Oladapo, Olufemi T.; Ravaud, Philippe; Tendal Jeppesen, Britta; Thomas, James; Turner, Tari et al. (December 2021). "Decision makers need constantly updated evidence synthesis" (in en). Nature 600 (7889): 383–385. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-03690-1. PMID 34912079. Bibcode: 2021Natur.600..383E.
118. ↑ Snyder, Alison (14 October 2021). "New ideas are struggling to emerge from the sea of science". Axios. https://www.axios.com/science-new-ideas-dbe29601-010c-411a-b79d-bbd1388ec5a0.html.
119. ↑ Chu, Johan S. G.; Evans, James A. (12 October 2021). "Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science" (in en). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (41). doi:10.1073/pnas.2021636118. ISSN 0027-8424. PMID 34607941. Bibcode: 2021PNAS..11821636C.
120. ↑ "Sharing of tacit knowledge is most important aspect of mentorship, study finds" (in en). phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2020-06-tacit-knowledge-important-aspect-mentorship.html.
121. ↑ Ma, Yifang; Mukherjee, Satyam; Uzzi, Brian (23 June 2020). "Mentorship and protégé success in STEM fields" (in en). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (25): 14077–14083. doi:10.1073/pnas.1915516117. ISSN 0027-8424. PMID 32522881. Bibcode: 2020PNAS..11714077M.
122. ↑ "Science of Science authors hope to spark conversations about the scientific enterprise" (in en). phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2018-03-science-authors-conversations-scientific-enterprise.html.
123. ↑ van Dijk, Peter J.; Jessop, Adrienne P.; Ellis, T. H. Noel (July 2022). "How did Mendel arrive at his discoveries?" (in en). Nature Genetics 54 (7): 926–933. doi:10.1038/s41588-022-01109-9. ISSN 1546-1718. PMID 35817970.
124. ↑ Root-Bernstein, Robert S.; Bernstein, Maurine; Garnier, Helen (1 April 1995). "Correlations Between Avocations, Scientific Style, Work Habits, and Professional Impact of Scientists". Creativity Research Journal 8 (2): 115–137. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0802_2. ISSN 1040-0419.
125. ↑ Ince, Sharon; Hoadley, Christopher; Kirschner, Paul A. (1 January 2022). "A qualitative study of social sciences faculty research workflows". Journal of Documentation 78 (6): 1321–1337. doi:10.1108/JD-08-2021-0168. ISSN 0022-0418. https://research.ou.nl/en/publications/a4187178-730d-43fa-affc-5ae9ffac1b8d.
126. ↑ Nassi-Calò, Lilian (3 April 2014). "Researchers reading habits for scientific literature | SciELO in Perspective". https://blog.scielo.org/en/2014/04/03/researchers-reading-habits-for-scientific-literature/.
127. ↑ Van Noorden, Richard (3 February 2014). "Scientists may be reaching a peak in reading habits" (in en). Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14658. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.14658.
128. ↑ Arshad, Alia; Ameen, Kanwal (1 January 2021). "Comparative analysis of academic scientists, social scientists and humanists' scholarly information seeking habits" (in en). The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (1). doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102297. ISSN 0099-1333.
129. ↑ "Why it pays to join a big research group if you want to be more scientifically productive". Physics World. 24 November 2022. https://physicsworld.com/a/why-it-pays-to-join-a-big-research-group-if-you-want-to-be-more-scientifically-productive/.
130. ↑ Zhang, Sam; Wapman, K. Hunter; Larremore, Daniel B.; Clauset, Aaron (16 November 2022). "Labor advantages drive the greater productivity of faculty at elite universities" (in en). Science Advances 8 (46). doi:10.1126/sciadv.abq7056. ISSN 2375-2548. PMID 36399560. Bibcode: 2022SciA....8.7056Z.
131. ↑ Dunn, Katharine. "LibGuides: Promotion & Tenure and Open Scholarship: How is "impact" measured & valued?" (in en). https://libguides.mit.edu/c.php?g=1162307&p=8489698.
132. ↑ "Academic Incentives and Research Impact: Developing Reward and Recognition Systems to Better People's Lives". https://sfdora.org/resource/academic-incentives-and-research-impact-developing-reward-and-recognition-systems-to-better-peoples-lives/.
133. ↑ Collison, Patrick; Cowen, Tyler (30 July 2019). "We Need a New Science of Progress" (in en). https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/we-need-new-science-progress/594946/.
134. ↑ Lovely, Garrison (16 June 2022). "Do we need a better understanding of 'progress'?" (in en). BBC. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220615-do-we-need-a-better-understanding-of-progress.
135. ↑ Niehaus, Paul; Williams, Heidi. "Developing the science of science". https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/developing-the-science-of-science/.
136. ↑ "Registered Replication Reports". Association for Psychological Science. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/replication.
137. ↑ Chambers, Chris (2014-05-20). "Psychology's 'registration revolution'". the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/may/20/psychology-registration-revolution.
138. ↑ Simera, I; Moher, D; Hirst, A; Hoey, J; Schulz, KF; Altman, DG (2010). "Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network". BMC Medicine 8. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-24. PMID 20420659.
139. ↑ Simera, I.; Moher, D.; Hoey, J.; Schulz, K. F.; Altman, D. G. (2010). "A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research". European Journal of Clinical Investigation 40 (1): 35–53. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02234.x. PMID 20055895.
140. ↑ Simera, I; Altman, DG (October 2009). "Writing a research article that is "fit for purpose": EQUATOR Network and reporting guidelines". Evidence-Based Medicine 14 (5): 132–134. doi:10.1136/ebm.14.5.132. PMID 19794009.
141. ↑ Ep. 49: Joel Chan on metascience, creativity, and tools for thought.
142. ↑ "Risk of Bias Tool | Cochrane Bias" (in en). https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/risk-bias-tool.
143. ↑ Prasad, Vinay; Ioannidis, John P. A. (November 2022). "Constructive and obsessive criticism in science" (in en). European Journal of Clinical Investigation 52 (11). doi:10.1111/eci.13839. ISSN 0014-2972. PMID 35869811.
144. ↑ Chan, Joel; Lutters, Wayne; Schneider, Jodi; Kirsanow, Karola; Bessa, Silvia; Saunders, Jonny L. (8 November 2022). "Growing New Scholarly Communication Infrastructures for Sharing, Reusing, and Synthesizing Knowledge". Companion Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 278–281. doi:10.1145/3500868.3559398. ISBN 978-1-4503-9190-0.
145. ↑ Segado-Boj, Francisco; Martín-Quevedo, Juan; Prieto-Gutiérrez, Juan-José (12 December 2022). "Jumping over the paywall: Strategies and motivations for scholarly piracy and other alternatives" (in en). Information Development 40 (3): 442–460. doi:10.1177/02666669221144429. ISSN 0266-6669. https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/75874/1/Preprint_Segado-Boj_ID_2022.pdf.
146. ↑ Gosztyla, Maya (7 July 2022). "How to find, read and organize papers" (in en). Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-01878-7. PMID 35804061. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01878-7. Retrieved 28 January 2023.
147. ↑ Fastrez, Pierre; Jacques, Jerry (2015). "Managing References by Filing and Tagging: An Exploratory Study of Personal Information Management by Social Scientists" (in en). Human Interface and the Management of Information. Information and Knowledge Design. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 9172. Springer International Publishing. pp. 291–300. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20612-7_28. ISBN 978-3-319-20611-0.
148. ↑ Chaudhry, Abdus Sattar; Alajmi, Bibi M. (1 January 2022). "Personal information management practices: how scientists find and organize information". Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication 73 (6/7): 757–774. doi:10.1108/GKMC-04-2022-0082. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/GKMC-04-2022-0082/full/html.
149. ↑ Chang, Joseph Chee; Kim, Yongsung; Miller, Victor; Liu, Michael Xieyang; Myers, Brad A; Kittur, Aniket (12 October 2021). "Tabs.do: Task-Centric Browser Tab Management". The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 663–676. doi:10.1145/3472749.3474777. ISBN 978-1-4503-8635-7.
150. ↑ Rasberry, Lane; Tibbs, Sheri; Hoos, William; Westermann, Amy; Keefer, Jeffrey; Baskauf, Steven James; Anderson, Clifford; Walker, Philip; Kwok, Cherrie; Mietchen, Daniel (4 April 2022). "WikiProject Clinical Trials for Wikidata". medRxiv 10.1101/2022.04.01.22273328.
151. ↑ Moral-Muñoz, José A.; Herrera-Viedma, Enrique; Santisteban-Espejo, Antonio; Cobo, Manuel J. (19 January 2020). "Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review". El Profesional de la Información 29 (1). doi:10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03.
152. ↑ "A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more" (in en). phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2021-05-replication-crisis-true-cited.html.
153. ↑ Serra-Garcia, Marta; Gneezy, Uri (2021-05-01). "Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones" (in en). Science Advances 7 (21). doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd1705. ISSN 2375-2548. PMID 34020944. Bibcode: 2021SciA....7.1705S.
154. ↑ Parker, Lisa; Boughton, Stephanie; Lawrence, Rosa; Bero, Lisa (1 November 2022). "Experts identified warning signs of fraudulent research: a qualitative study to inform a screening tool". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 151: 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.006. PMID 35850426.
155. ↑ Ioannidis, JPA (2016). "Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful". PLOS Med 13 (6). doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049. PMID 27328301.
156. ↑ Ioannidis JA (13 July 2005). "Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research". JAMA 294 (2): 218–228. doi:10.1001/jama.294.2.218. PMID 16014596.
157. ↑ Chalmers, Iain; Glasziou, Paul (2009). "Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence". The Lancet 374 (9683): 86–89. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 19525005. Bibcode: 2009Lanc..374...86C. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet.
158. ↑ June 24, Jeremy Hsu; ET, Jeremy Hsu (24 June 2010). "Dark Side of Medical Research: Widespread Bias and Omissions". https://www.livescience.com/8365-dark-side-medical-research-widespread-bias-omissions.html.
159. ↑ "Confronting conflict of interest" (in en). Nature Medicine 24 (11): 1629. November 2018. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0256-7. ISSN 1546-170X. PMID 30401866.
160. ↑ Haque, Waqas; Minhajuddin, Abu; Gupta, Arjun; Agrawal, Deepak (2018). "Conflicts of interest of editors of medical journals". PLOS ONE 13 (5). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197141. ISSN 1932-6203. PMID 29775468. Bibcode: 2018PLoSO..1397141H.
161. ↑ Moncrieff, J (March 2002). "The antidepressant debate." (in en). The British Journal of Psychiatry 180 (3): 193–194. doi:10.1192/bjp.180.3.193. ISSN 0007-1250. PMID 11872507.
162. ↑ Bello, S; Moustgaard, H; Hróbjartsson, A (October 2014). "The risk of unblinding was infrequently and incompletely reported in 300 randomized clinical trial publications.". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67 (10): 1059–1069. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.05.007. ISSN 1878-5921. PMID 24973822.
163. ↑ Tuleu, Catherine; Legay, Helene; Orlu-Gul, Mine; Wan, Mandy (1 September 2013). "Blinding in pharmacological trials: the devil is in the details" (in en). Archives of Disease in Childhood 98 (9): 656–659. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2013-304037. ISSN 0003-9888. PMID 23898156.
164. ↑ Kirsch, I (2014). "Antidepressants and the Placebo Effect.". Zeitschrift für Psychologie 222 (3): 128–134. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000176. ISSN 2190-8370. PMID 25279271.
165. ↑ Ioannidis, John PA (27 May 2008). "Effectiveness of antidepressants: an evidence myth constructed from a thousand randomized trials?". Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 3: 14. doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-14. ISSN 1747-5341. PMID 18505564.
166. ↑ Moher, David; Altman, Douglas G.; Schulz, Kenneth F. (24 March 2010). "CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials" (in en). BMJ 340: c332. doi:10.1136/bmj.c332. ISSN 0959-8138. PMID 20332509.
167. ↑ Clarke, Michael; Chalmers, Iain (1998). "Discussion Sections in Reports of Controlled Trials Published in General Medical Journals". JAMA 280 (3): 280–282. doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.280. PMID 9676682.
168. ↑ 168.0 168.1 Lau, Joseph; Antman, Elliott M; Jimenez-Silva, Jeanette; Kupelnick, Bruce; Mosteller, Frederick; Chalmers, Thomas C (1992). "Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials for Myocardial Infarction". New England Journal of Medicine 327 (4): 248–254. doi:10.1056/NEJM199207233270406. PMID 1614465.
169. ↑ Fergusson, Dean; Glass, Kathleen Cranley; Hutton, Brian; Shapiro, Stan (2016). "Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: Could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding?". Clinical Trials 2 (3): 218–229; discussion 229–232. doi:10.1191/1740774505cn085oa. PMID 16279145.
170. ↑ Clarke, Mike; Brice, Anne; Chalmers, Iain (2014). "Accumulating Research: A Systematic Account of How Cumulative Meta-Analyses Would Have Provided Knowledge, Improved Health, Reduced Harm and Saved Resources". PLOS ONE 9 (7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102670. PMID 25068257. Bibcode: 2014PLoSO...9j2670C.
171. ↑ 171.0 171.1 Robinson, Karen A; Goodman, Steven N (2011). "A Systematic Examination of the Citation of Prior Research in Reports of Randomized, Controlled Trials". Annals of Internal Medicine 154 (1): 50–55. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00007. PMID 21200038.
172. ↑ Epstein, David (22 February 2017). "When Evidence Says No, but Doctors Say Yes - The Atlantic". https://getpocket.com/explore/item/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes.
173. ↑ Tatsioni, A; Bonitsis, NG; Ioannidis, JP (5 December 2007). "Persistence of contradicted claims in the literature.". JAMA 298 (21): 2517–2526. doi:10.1001/jama.298.21.2517. ISSN 1538-3598. PMID 18056905.
174. ↑ Franco, Annie; Malhotra, Neil; Simonovits, Gabor (1 January 2016). "Underreporting in Psychology Experiments: Evidence From a Study Registry" (in en). Social Psychological and Personality Science 7 (1): 8–12. doi:10.1177/1948550615598377. ISSN 1948-5506.
175. ↑ Munafò, Marcus (29 March 2017). "Metascience: Reproducibility blues" (in en). Nature 543 (7647): 619–620. doi:10.1038/543619a. ISSN 1476-4687. Bibcode: 2017Natur.543..619M.
176. ↑ Stokstad, Erik (20 September 2018). "This research group seeks to expose weaknesses in science - and they'll step on some toes if they have to". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aav4784.
177. ↑ Open Science Collaboration (2015). "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science". Science 349 (6251). doi:10.1126/science.aac4716. PMID 26315443. http://eprints.keele.ac.uk/877/1/Open Science (Science Pre-Print).pdf.
178. ↑ 178.0 178.1 Allen, Christopher P G.; Mehler, David Marc Anton. "Open Science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond". doi:10.31234/osf.io/3czyt. http://psyarxiv.com/3czyt/.
179. ↑ Simmons, Joseph P.; Nelson, Leif D.; Simonsohn, Uri (2011). "False-Positive Psychology". Psychological Science 22 (11): 1359–1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632. PMID 22006061.
180. ↑ Stroebe, Wolfgang; Strack, Fritz (2014). "The Alleged Crisis and the Illusion of Exact Replication". Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (1): 59–71. doi:10.1177/1745691613514450. PMID 26173241. https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/12588700/postprint_Stroebe_Strack_2014.pdf.
181. ↑ Aschwanden, Christie (6 December 2018). Psychology's Replication Crisis Has Made The Field Better. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologys-replication-crisis-has-made-the-field-better/. Retrieved 19 December 2018.
182. ↑ Cohen, Jacob (1994). "The earth is round (p < .05)". American Psychologist 49 (12): 997–1003. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997.
183. ↑ MacCoun, Robert; Perlmutter, Saul (8 October 2015). "Blind analysis: Hide results to seek the truth" (in en). Nature 526 (7572): 187–189. doi:10.1038/526187a. PMID 26450040. Bibcode: 2015Natur.526..187M.
184. ↑ Demir, Nurullah; Große-Kampmann, Matteo; Urban, Tobias; Wressnegger, Christian; Holz, Thorsten; Pohlmann, Norbert (2022). "Reproducibility and Replicability of Web Measurement Studies". New York: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 533–544. doi:10.1145/3485447.3512214.
185. ↑ Berlin, Meta-Research Innovation Center. "Meta-Research Innovation Center Berlin" (in en-us). https://www.metricberlin.bihealth.org/.
186. ↑ "Home | Meta-research Innovation Center at Stanford". https://metrics.stanford.edu/.
187. ↑ "Meta-research and Evidence Synthesis Unit" (in en). https://www.georgeinstitute.org.in/units/meta-research-and-evidence-synthesis-unit.
188. ↑ "AIMOS 2022". https://www.eventcreate.com/e/aimos2022.
189. ↑ "Metascience 2023". https://metascience.info/.

## Further reading

* Bonett, D.G. (2021). Design and analysis of replication studies. Organizational Research Methods, 24, 513-529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120911088
* Lydia Denworth, "A Significant Problem: Standard scientific methods are under fire. Will anything change?", Scientific American, vol. 321, no. 4 (October 2019), pp. 62–67.
* "The use of p values for nearly a century [since 1925] to determine statistical significance of experimental results has contributed to an illusion of certainty and [to] reproducibility crises in many scientific fields. There is growing determination to reform statistical analysis... Some [researchers] suggest changing statistical methods, whereas others would do away with a threshold for defining "significant" results." (p. 63.)
* Harris, Richard (2017). Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hopes, and Wastes Billions. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-09791-3. https://books.google.com/books?id=lk5IDgAAQBAJ.
* Fortunato, SantoExpression error: Unrecognized word "et". (2 March 2018). "Science of science". Science 359 (6379). doi:10.1126/science.aao0185. PMID 29496846. PMC 5949209. Bibcode: 2018Sci...359o0185F. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323502497.

## External links

| Scholia has a topic profile for Metascience.

|

### Journals

* Minerva: A Journal of Science, Learning and Policy
* Research Integrity and Peer Review
* Research Policy
* Science and Public Policy

### Conferences

* Annual Metascience Conference

* v
* t
* e

Evidence-based practice

Key terms|

* Evidence-based practice
* Hierarchy of evidence

Applications|

* Effective altruism
* Evidence-based assessment
* Evidence-based conservation
* Evidence-based dentistry
* Evidence-based design
* Evidence-based education
* Evidence-based legislation
* Evidence-based library and information practice
* Evidence-based management
* Evidence-based medical ethics
* Evidence-based medicine
* Evidence-based nursing
* Evidence-based pharmacy in developing countries
* Evidence-based policing
* Evidence-based policy
* Evidence-based scheduling
* Evidence-based toxicology
* Journalology
* Metascience

Methods and concepts|

* Clinical trial
* Systematic review
* Meta-analysis
* Randomized controlled trial
* Health technology assessment
* PICO process
* GRADE
* Pragmatic clinical trial
* Risk assessment
* Scientific uncertainty
* Policy-based evidence making

People|

* Iain Chalmers
* Ken Harvey
* John Ioannidis

Groups|

| Non-profit|

* James Lind Alliance
* Cochrane Collaboration
* Campbell Collaboration
* Science based medicine

|

Governmental|

* Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
* EUnetHTA
* Evidence-Informed Policy Network
* German Agency for Quality in Medicine (AEZQ)
* National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
* Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU)

Academic|

* Centre for Reviews and Dissemination

Other|

* Examine.com

* v
* t
* e

Science and technology studies

Economics|

* Economics of science
* Economics of scientific knowledge

History|

* History and philosophy of science
* History of science
* and technology
* History of technology

Philosophy|

* Anthropocene
* Antipositivism
* Empiricism
* Fuzzy logic
* Neo-Luddism
* Philosophy of science
* Philosophy of social science
* Philosophy of technology
* Positivism
* Postpositivism
* Religion and science
* Scientism
* Social constructivism
* Social epistemology
* Transhumanism

Sociology|

* Actor–network theory
* Social
* construction of technology
* shaping of technology
* Sociology of knowledge
* scientific
* Sociology of scientific ignorance
* Sociology of the history of science
* Sociotechnology
* Strong programme

Science
studies|

* Antiscience
* Bibliometrics
* Boundary-work
* Consilience
* Criticism of science
* Demarcation problem
* Double hermeneutic
* Logology
* Mapping controversies
* Metascience
* Paradigm shift
* Pseudoscience
* Psychology of science
* Science
* citizen
* communication
* education
* normal
* post-normal
* rhetoric
* wars
* Scientific
* community
* consensus
* controversy
* dissent
* enterprise
* literacy
* method
* misconduct
* priority
* skepticism
* Scientocracy
* Scientometrics
* Team science
* Traditional knowledge
* ecological
* Unity of science
* Women in science
* STEM

Technology
studies|

* Co-production
* Cyborg anthropology
* Dematerialization
* Digital anthropology
* Digital media use and mental health
* Early adopter
* Hype cycle
* Innovation
* diffusion
* disruptive
* linear model
* system
* user
* Leapfrogging
* Normalization process theory
* Reverse salient
* Skunkworks project
* Sociotechnical system
* Technical change
* Technocracy
* Technoscience
* feminist
* Technological
* change
* convergence
* determinism
* revolution
* transitions
* Technology
* and society
* criticism of
* dynamics
* theories of
* transfer
* Engineering studies
* Women in engineering

Policy|

* Academic freedom
* Digital divide
* Evidence-based policy
* Factor 10
* Funding of science
* Science policy
* history of
* science of
* Politicization of science
* Regulation of science
* Research ethics
* Right to science
* Socio-scientific issues
* Technology assessment
* Technology policy
* Transition management

* Portals
* Science
* History of science
* Technology
* Category
* Associations
* Journals
* Scholars

Template:Meta-prefix

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metascience. Read more

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Metascience&oldid=4348918"
*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template