Critical metascience questions common assumptions in metascience, suggesting new approaches to enhance objectivity and reduce biases.
Metascience uses a scientific approach to understand and improve science. Critical metascience takes a step back to question metascience’s commonly-accepted assumptions, methods, problems, and solutions. In this article, I define critical metascience and explain how it can help to identify and address collective biases within metascience. I also highlight some emerging themes in the field. Finally, I consider some potential relationships between metascience and critical metascience and argue that the most functional model is one in which two fields are partially overlapping. I conclude that there needs to be greater recognition and dialogue between metascience and critical metascience in order to improve metascience’s objectivity and approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mark Rubin (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: