HistoryIn 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." 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. The paper went on to become the most downloaded paper in the Public Library of Science and is considered foundational to the field of metascience. 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. Later meta-research identified widespread difficulty in Reproducibility, replicating results in many scientific fields, including psychology and Evidence-based medicine, medicine. This problem was termed "replication crisis, the replication crisis". Metascience has grown as a reaction to the replication crisis and to concerns about waste in research. Many prominent publishers are interested in meta-research and in improving the quality of their publications. Top journals such as ''Nature (journal), Science,'' ''The Lancet'', and ''Nature (journal), Nature,'' provide ongoing coverage of meta-research and problems with reproducibility. In 2012 ''PLOS ONE'' launched a Reproducibility Initiative. In 2015 BioMed Central, 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 Network, EQUATOR conference held in Edinburgh in 2015; the first international conference on peer review was the Peer Review Congress held in 1989. 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".
Areas of meta-researchMetascience 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.
MethodsMetascience seeks to identify poor research practices, including biases in research, poor study design, abuse of statistics, and to find methods to reduce these practices. Meta-research has identified numerous biases in scientific literature. Of particular note is the widespread misuse of p-values and abuse of statistical significance.
ReportingMeta-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 Reproducibility, 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 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, CONSORT and the larger EQUATOR Network.
ReproducibilityThe replication crisis is an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproducibility, replicate. While the crisis has its roots in the meta-research of the mid- to late-1900s, the phrase "replication crisis" was not coined until the early 2010s as part of a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis particularly affects psychology (especially social psychology) and medicine. Replication is an essential part of the scientific process, and the widespread failure of replication puts into question the reliability of affected fields. 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.
Evaluation and incentivesMetascience seeks to create a scientific foundation for peer review. Meta-research evaluates Scholarly peer review, peer review systems including Scholarly peer review#Pre-publication peer review, pre-publication peer review, Scholarly peer review#Post-publication peer review, post-publication peer review, and open peer review. It also seeks to develop better research funding criteria. 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. Critics argue that perverse incentives have created a publish or perish, publish-or-perish environment in academia which promotes the production of junk science, low quality research, and false positives. 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." Proponents of reform seek to structure the incentive system to favor higher-quality results. A study proposed a machine-readable standard for science publication management systems that hones in on contributorship (who has contributed what and how much), rather that using traditional concept of authorship (who was involved in any way creation of a publication). Factors other than a submission's merits can substantially influence peer reviewers' evaluations. 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 altmetric even when such can be used as partial indicators of such ends.
Science governanceScience funding and science governance can also be explored by metascience.
= Science funding and awards= 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 clusters 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 according to their DC2 and DC3 classification systems. Five of the 114 domains were shown to make up over half of the Nobel prizes awarded 1995–2017 (particle physics [14%], cell biology [12.1%], atomic physics [10.9%], neuroscience [10.1%], molecular chemistry [5.3%]). 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. Measurements show that allocation of bio-medical resources can be more strongly correlated to previous allocations and research than to burden of diseases. 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".
Science communication and public useIt has been argued that "science has two fundamental attributes that underpin its value as a global public good: that knowledge claims and the evidence on which they are based are made openly available to scrutiny, and that the results of scientific research are communicated promptly and efficiently". 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. A study found that the "main incentive academics are offered for using social media is amplification" and that it should be "moving towards an institutional culture that focuses more on how these [or such] platforms can facilitate real engagement with research". Science communication may also involve the communication of societal needs, concerns and requests to scientists.
Evolution of scientific practiceMetascience 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". 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.
Factors of success and progressTwo metascientists reported that "structures fostering disruptive scholarship and focusing attention on novel ideas" could be important as in a growing scientific field scientific citation, citation flows disproportionately consolidate to already well-cited papers, possibly slowing and inhibiting canonical Progress#Scientific progress, progress. A study found to enhance impact of truly innovative and highly interdisciplinary novel ideas, they should be placed in the context of established knowledge. Other researchers reported that the most successful – in terms of "likelihood of Lists of science and technology awards, prizewinning, National Academy of Science (NAS) induction, or superstardom" – Mentorship, 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. 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".
ReformsMeta-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.
Pre-registrationThe practice of registering a scientific study before it is conducted is called pre-registration (science), 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, reduce data dredging, and increase replicability.
Reporting standardsStudies 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 (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network is an international initiative aimed at promoting transparent and accurate reporting of health research studies to enhance the value and reliability of medical research literature. 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. 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.
ApplicationsThe areas of application of metascience include ICTs, medicine, pyschology and physics.
ICTsMetascience is used in the creation and improvement of technical systems (Information and communications technology, ICTs) and standards of science evaluation, incentivation, communication, commissioning, funding, regulation, production, management, use and publication. Such may seek to explore ways to increase quantity, quality and positive impact of research. One example for such is the development of alternative metrics. 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.
MedicineClinical research in medicine is often of low quality, and many studies cannot be replicated. An estimated 85% of research funding is wasted. Additionally, the presence of bias affects research quality. The pharmaceutical companies, pharmaceutical industry exerts substantial influence on the design and execution of medical research. Conflicts of interest are common among authors of medical literature 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. 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. blinded experiment, Blinding is another focus of meta-research, as error caused by poor blinding is a source of bias, 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. Furthermore, unblinding, failure of blinding is rarely measured or reported. Research showing the failure of blinding in antidepressant trials has led some scientists to argue that antidepressants are no better than placebo. In light of meta-research showing failures of blinding, CONSORT standards recommend that all clinical trials assess and report the quality of blinding. Studies have shown that systematic reviews of existing research evidence are sub-optimally used in planning a new research or summarizing the results. 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. For example, Lau et al. analyzed 33 clinical trials (involving 36974 patients) evaluating the effectiveness of intravenous streptokinase for Myocardial infarction, 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 analyzed 1523 clinical trials included in 227 Meta-analysis, 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. 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.
PsychologyMetascience has revealed significant problems in psychological research. The field suffers from high bias, low reproducibility, and widespread misuse of statistics. 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. Meta-research finds that 80-95% of psychological studies support their initial hypotheses, which strongly implies the existence of publication bias. The replication crisis has led to renewed efforts to re-test important findings. In response to concerns about publication bias and Data dredging, ''p''-hacking, more than 140 psychology journals have adopted Scholarly peer review#Result-blind peer review, result-blind peer review, in which studies are Registered report, pre-registered and published without regard for their outcome. 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. Psychologists routinely confuse statistical significance with practical importance, enthusiastically reporting great certainty in unimportant facts. Some psychologists have responded with an increased use of effect size statistics, rather than sole reliance on the P value, ''p'' values.
PhysicsRichard 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.
Organizations and InstitutesThere are several organizations and universities across the globe which work on meta-research - Meta-Research Innovation Center at Berlin ,Meta-research Innovation Center at Stanford, Meta-research & Evidence Synthesis Unit, The George Institute for Global Health, India .
JournalologyJournalology, also known as publication science, is the scholarly study of all aspects of the academic publishing process. The field seeks to improve the quality of scholarly research by implementing evidence-based practices in academic publishing. 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. The field of journalology has been influential in pushing for study pre-registration (science), pre-registration in science, particularly in clinical trials. Clinical trial registration, Clinical-trial registration is now expected in most countries.
ScientometricsScientometrics concerns itself with measuring bibliometrics, 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.Loet Leydesdorff, Leydesdorff, L. and Milojevic, S., "Scientometrics
Scientific data scienceScientific data science is the use of data science to analyse research papers. It encompasses both Qualitative method, qualitative and Quantitative method, quantitative methods. Research in scientific data science includes fraud detection and citation network analysis.
Further reading* 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 value, ''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, reproducibility crises in many science, 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.) *
External linksJournals *