Why Meta-Research Matters

From providers and patients developing treatment plans to governments creating policies affecting the lives of millions, society depends on evidence from scientific research that is rigorous, credible and valid to make informed decisions. In partnership with researchers, policymakers and other key stakeholders, the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) is reimagining science for the 21st century with the goal of strengthening the research enterprise to improve the quality of scientific studies in biomedicine and beyond. More About Us

Map of World
Meta-Research Around the World

Highlights:

  • Improving Biomedical Research: METRICS Conference 2015

    Learn more about proposed solutions from leading experts at the METRICS conference.

  • Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices

    As the scientific enterprise has grown in size and diversity, we need empirical evidence on the research process to test and apply interventions that make it more efficient and its results more reliable. Meta-research is an evolving scientific discipline that aims to evaluate and improve research practices. It includes thematic areas of methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives (how to do, report, verify, correct, and reward science). Much work is already done in this growing field, but efforts to-date are fragmented. We provide a map of ongoing efforts and discuss plans for connecting the multiple meta-research efforts across science worldwide.

  • Call for Applications: METRICS Postdoctoral Fellowships 2016-17

    The Center invites applications for postdoctoral fellowship positions in the broad area of meta-research and related fields relevant to the mission of METRICS.

  • Research Re-examined

    An emerging breed of scientists known as "meta-researchers" is taking a close look at how modern science is conducted and reported.

Latest News

All News

  • Not Even Scientists Can Easily Explain P-values

    News: FiveThirtyEight

    P-values have taken quite a beating lately. These widely used and commonly misapplied statistics have been blamed for giving a veneer of legitimacy to dodgy study results, encouraging bad research practices and promoting false-positive study results.

  • Replication in Psychological Science

    News: Psychological Science

    Psychological Science, the journal, and psychological science, the field, continue to struggle with the challenge of establishing interesting and important and replicable phenomena.

  • Replicability Ranking? Not Quite There Yet

    Blog

    A few days ago, the correspondent of a prominent scientific journal drew my attention to a recent Replicability-Ranking of 100 Social Psychology Departments. “Do you think it is worth reporting?” I was asked in earnest. My answer was brief and very conflicted, and here I'll articulate why.

Next Event

All Events

Latest Publication

All publications

Research Areas

METRICS Research Focal Areas

  • Methods

    Doing Research: study design, methods, statistics, research synthesis, collaboration ethics

  • Reporting

    Communicating Research: reporting standards, study registration, disclosing conflicts of interest, information to patients, public and policy-makers

  • Evaluation

    Correcting Research: pre-publication peer review, post-publication peer review, other means of detecting and correcting errors

  • Reproducibility

    Verifying Research: sharing data and methods, repeatability, replicability, reproducibility, self-correction

  • Incentives

    Rewarding Research: criteria, rewards and penalties in research evaluation for individuals, teams and institutions

Metrics Logo Mark

Download METRICS
Overview

Download icon