Short Abstract

Metascience has received ample criticism over the years. This deserves our attention. In this panel we invite anyone interested in exploring central critiques of Metascience and associated reforms to come together and discuss them in a constructive and open roundtable setting.

Long Abstract

Metascience and its associated reform movement have received ample criticism over the years. Such criticism includes: a narrow focus on quantitative research, a lack of theoretical guidance for metascientific research as well as an overreliance on replication, standardization, and bureaucratization to address the identified issues. Moreover, some see a tendency within Metascience to insulate, not engage much with other fields addressing similar subjects (e.g. Science Studies). There have also been concerns about how (poorly) metascientists have reacted to such criticism in the past.

To constructively address these recurring themes and their implications, we invite attendees of the Metascience conference to join us in an open roundtable discussion. We would like to ask: “How should we, as a community, engage with criticism and what can we learn from it?”. We will begin with a quick recap of central critiques presented at a pre-conference event with prominent Metascience critics. This leads us to an open discussion between a panel consisting of Sheena Bartscherer, Bart Penders, Ismael Rafols and Nicole Nelson as well as the audience, moderated by Sven Ulpts. Hence, the central goal of this session is to provide a forum to constructively reflect on these critiques, while also critically examining one’s own initial reactions: why have critiques been perceived as hostile, for example, and how can we, as a community, move past defensive posturing and instead reassess our reactions to work out a more useful path forward, practicing a more reflective, inclusive, and democratic Metascience?