This chapter examines the current state of meta-research. Specifically, we explore meta-research’s dynamic nature as a unique characteristic of an area of study that requires researchers to examine the practices, processes and norms within which their own work is situated. In addition, the interdisciplinary nature of meta-research presents epistemological tensions around notions of research quality, that also are an important area of study and of constant examination and debate for meta-researchers. This chapter examines the potential consequences of this diversity on the recognition of meta-research as a field or discipline. The chapter concludes with an acknowledgement that the field benefits from keeping disciplinary borders fluid as a way of encouraging and valuing interdisciplinary perspectives and experiences of meta research.

  • Amano-Patiño, N., Faraglia, E., Giannitsarou, C., and Hasna, Z. (2020). The Unequal Effects of Covid-19 on Economists’ Research Productivity [Working Paper]. Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.57979.

  • Andersen, J. P., Nielsen, M. W., Simone, N. L., Lewiss, R. E., and Jagsi, R. (n.d.). COVID-19 medical papers have fewer women first authors than expected. ELife, 9, e58807. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58807.

  • Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M., and Zinovyeva, N. (2017). Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter? American Economic Review, 107(4), 1207–1238. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151211.

  • Ballantyne, N. (2019). Knowing our Limits. Oxford University Press.

  • Becher, T., and Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories. McGraw-Hill Education.

  • Benjamin, A. C. (1960). Is the Philosophy of Science Scientific? Philosophy of Science, 27(4), 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1086/287763.

  • Boaz, A., Davies, H., T, O., Fraser, A., and Nutley, S., M. (2019). What Works Now? Evidence-informed Policy and Practice. Policy Press.

  • Bornmann, L., Wallon, G., and Ledin, A. (2008). Does the Committee Peer Review Select the Best Applicants for Funding? An Investigation of the Selection Process for Two European Molecular Biology Organization Programmes. PLOS ONE, 3(10), e3480. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003480.

  • Bourdieu, P. (1985). The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups. Social Science Information, 24(2),195–220.

  • Bowyer, D., Deitz, M., Jamison, A., Taylor, C. E., Gyengesi, E., Ross, J., Hammond, H., Ogbeide, A. E., and Dune, T. (2022). Academic Mothers, Professional Identity and COVID-19: Feminist Reflections on Career Cycles, Progression and Practice. Gender, Work & Organization, 29(1), 309–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12750.

  • CoARA (2022). Agreement on Research Assessment. Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment, https://coara.eu/app/uploads/2022/09/2022_07_19_rra_agreement_final.pdf accessed 6 September 2023.

  • Cole, J., and Zuckerman, H. (1984). The Productivity Puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. In Advances in Motivation and Achievement: A Research Annual (Vol. 2, pp. 217–258). JAI Press Inc. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jonathan-Cole-8/publication/304109111_The_Productivity_Puzzle/links/57961fd808aec89db7b84d3e/The-Productivity-Puzzle.pdf accessed 6 September 2023.

  • Criado Perez, C. (2019). Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. Chatto & Windus.

  • Cronin, B., and Sugimoto, C. R. (2014). Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact. MIT Press.

  • Curry, S., Gadd, E., and Wilsdon, J. (2022). Harnessing the Metric Tide: Indicators, Infrastructures and Priorities for UK Responsible Research Assessment. Research on Research Institute. Report. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21701624.v2.

  • Dahler-Larsen, P. (2001). The Evaluation Society. Stanford University Press.

  • Davis, J. C., Li, E. P. H., Butterfield, M. S., DiLabio, G. A., Santhagunam, N., and Marcolin, B. (2022). Are We Failing Female and Racialised Academics? A Canadian national survey examining the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on tenure and tenure-track faculty. Gender, Work and Organization, 29(3), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12811.

  • Derrick, G. (2018). The Evaluators’ Eye: Impact Assessment and Academic Peer Review. Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Derrick, G. E., Watermeyer, R., and Batalla, M. B. (2022). Affective Auditing: The Emotional Weight of the 2022 Research Excellence Framework in the UK. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/c2zn5.

  • Evans, J. A., and Foster, J. G. (2011). Metaknowledge. Science, 331(6018), 721–725. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201765 accessed 6 September 2023.

  • Fanelli, D., Costas, R., and Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). Meta-assessment of bias in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(14), 3714–3719. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618569114.

  • Faria, R. (2018). Research Misconduct as White-collar Crime: A Criminological Approach. Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Faust, D., and Meehl, P. E. (2002). Using Meta-Scientific Studies to Clarify or Resolve Questions in the Philosophy and History of Science. Philosophy of Science, 69(S3), S185–S196. https://doi.org/10.1086/341845.

  • Ferber, Marianne. A., and Loeb, J., W. (1997). Academic Couples: Problems and Promises. University of Illinois Press.

  • FOLEC-CLACSO (2022) A new research assessment towards a socially relevant science in Latin America and the Carribean. Declaration approved in CLACSO´s XXVII General Assembly, Mexico, June 6th, 2022,

  • Greenhalgh, T., and Engebretsen, E. (2022). The Science-policy Relationship in Times of Crisis: An urgent call for a pragmatist turn. Social Science & Medicine, 306, 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115140.

  • Guy, J. S. (2018) Bourdieu In Hyperspace: From Social Topology to the Space of Flows. International Review of Sociology/ Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 28(3), 510–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2018.1529074.

  • Henkel, M. (2000). Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education. Jessica Kingsley.

  • Heyard, R., Ott, M., Salanti, G., and Egger, M. (2021). Rethinking the Funding Line at the Swiss National Science Foundation: Bayesian Ranking and Lottery. ArXiv:2102.09958 [Stat]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.09958.

  • Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., and Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a.

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.

  • Holbrook, J. B. (2013). What is Interdisciplinary Communication? Reflections on the Very Idea of Disciplinary Integration. Synthese, 190, 1865–1879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0179-7.

  • Horn, L., Albab, S., Gopalakrishnac, G., Kleinertd, S., Kombee, F., Laveryf, J. V., and Visagie, R. G. (2022) The Cape Town Statement on Fostering Research Integrity through Fairness and Equity. 7th World Conference on Research Integrity, Cape Town, May.

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLOS Biology, 16(3), e2005468. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468.

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D. D., and Goodman, S. N. (2015). Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices. PLOS Biology, 13(10), e1002264. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264.

  • Lamers, W. S., Boyack, K., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., and Murray, D. (2021). Investigating Disagreement in the Scientific Literature. ELife, 10, e72737. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72737

  • Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., and Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in Peer Review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784.

  • Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Challenge of Scientometrics: The Development, Measurement and Self-organization of Scientific Communications. DSWO Press.

  • Liu, M., Bu, Y., Chen, C., xu, J., Li, D., Leng, Y., Freeman, R., Meyer, E., Yoon, W., Sung, M., Jeong, M., Lee, J., Kang, J., Song, M., Zhai, Y., and Ding, Y. (2020). Can Pandemics Transform Scientific Novelty? Evidence from COVID-19.

  • Mahi, M., Mobin, M. A., Habib, M., and Akter, S. (2021). A bibliometric analysis of pandemic and epidemic studies in economics: Future agenda for COVID-19 research. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 4(1), 100165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100165.

  • McGaughey, F., Watermeyer, R., Shankar, K., Suri, V. R., Knight, C., Crick, T., Hardman, J., Phelan, D., and Chung, R. (2021). ‘This can’t be the new norm’: Academics’ Perspectives on the COVID-19 Crisis for the Australian University Sector. Higher Education Research and Development, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1973384.

  • Merton, R. K., and Merton, R. C. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. Simon and Schuster.

  • Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., et al. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for Assessing Researchers: Fostering Research Integrity. PLoS Biol, 18(7), e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737.

  • Montgomery, L., Hartley, J., Neylon, C., Gillies, M., Gray, E., Herrmann-Pillath, C., Huang, C.-K. (Karl), Leach, J., Potts, J., Ren, X., Skinner, K., Sugimoto, C. R., and Wilson, K. (2021). Open Knowledge Institutions: Reinventing Universities. MIT Press.

  • Munafò, M. (2017). Metascience: Reproducibility blues. Nature, 543(7647), 619–620. https://doi.org/10.1038/543619a.

  • Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., and Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A Manifesto for Reproducible Science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021.

  • Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., and Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence: How research can inform public services. The Policy Press.

  • Oancea, A. (2019). Research Governance and the Future(s) of Research Assessment. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0213-6.

  • Oliver, K., and Boaz, A. (2019). Transforming Evidence for Policy and Practice: Creating Space for New Conversations. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0266-1.

  • Pardo-Guerra, J. P. (2022). The Quantified Scholar: How Research Evaluations Transformed the British Social Sciences. Columbia University Press.

  • Peterson, D., and Panofsky, A. (2020). Metascience as a Scientific Social Movement. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/4dsqa.

  • Prudêncio, M., and Costa, J. C. (2020). Research Funding after COVID-19. Nature Microbiology, 5(8), 986–986. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0768-z.

  • Roumbanis, L. (2019). Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 44(6), 994–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918822744.

  • Sandel, M. J. (2020). The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? Allen Lane.

  • Shore, C. (2008). Audit Culture and Illiberal Governance: Universities and the Politics of Accountability. Anthropological Theory, 8(3), 278–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499608093815.

  • Staniscuaski, F., Kmetzsch, L., Soletti, R. C., Reichert, F., Zandonà, E., Ludwig, Z. M. C., Lima, E. F., Neumann, A., Schwartz, I. V. D., Mello-Carpes, P. B., Tamajusuku, A. S. K., Werneck, F. P., Ricachenevsky, F. K., Infanger, C., Seixas, A., Staats, C. C., and de Oliveira, L. (2021). Gender, Race and Parenthood Impact Academic Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Survey to Action. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.663252 accessed 6 September 2023.

  • Sugimoto, C. R., and Larivière, V. (2023). Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement. Harvard University Press.

  • The American Society for Cell Biology. (2012). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, Etc. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/191 accessed 6 September 2023.

  • van den Besselaar, P., Sandström, U., and Schiffbaenker, H. (2018). Studying Grant Decision-making: A Linguistic Analysis of Review Reports. Scientometrics, 117(1), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2848-x.

  • Wagner, C. S., Cai, X., Zhang, Y., and Fry, C. V. (2022). One-year in: COVID-19 Research at the International Level in CORD-19 Data. PLOS ONE, 17(5), e0261624. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261624.

  • Watermeyer, R. (2019). Competitive Accountability in Academic Life: The Struggle for Social Impact and Public Legitimacy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Watermeyer, R., Shankar, K., Crick, T., Knight, C., McGaughey, F., Hardman, J., Suri, V. R., Chung, R., and Phelan, D. (2021). ‘Pandemia’: A Reckoning of UK Universities’ Corporate Response to COVID-19 and its Academic Fallout. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 42(5–6), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.1937058.

  • Zinovyeva, N., and Tverdostup, M. (2021). Gender Identity, Coworking Spouses, and Relative Income within Households. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 13(4), 258–284. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20180542.