Metascience Since 2012: A Personal History – by Stuart Buck

“This essay is a personal history of the $60+ million I allocated to metascience starting in 2012 while working for the Arnold Foundation (now Arnold Ventures).

Click and keep reading if you want to know:

How the Center for Open Science started

How I accidentally up working with the John Oliver show

What kept PubPeer from going under in 2014

How a new set of data standards in neuroimaging arose

How a future-Nobel economist got started with a new education research organization

How the most widely-adopted set of journal standards came about

Why so many journals are offering registered reports

How writing about ideas on Twitter could fortuitously lead to a multi-million grant

Why we should reform graduate education in quantitative disciplines so as to include published replications

When meetings are useful (or not)

Why we need a new federal data infrastructure

I included lots of pointed commentary throughout, on issues like how to identify talent, how government funding should work, and how private philanthropy can be more effective. The conclusion is particularly critical of current grantmaking practices, so keep reading (or else skip ahead)….”

Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review

Abstract:  This study investigates whether negative citations in articles and comments posted on post-publication peer review platforms are both equally contributing to the correction of science. These 2 types of written evidence of disputes are compared by analyzing their occurrence in relation to articles that have already been retracted or corrected. We identi-fied retracted or corrected articles in a corpus of 72,069 articles coming from the Engineer-ing field, from 3 journals (Science, Tumor Biology, Cancer Research) and from 3 authors with many retractions to their credit (Sarkar, Schön, Voinnet). We used Scite to retrieve contradicting citations and PubPeer to retrieve the number of comments for each article, and then we considered them as traces left by scientists to contest published results. Our study shows that contradicting citations are very uncommon and that retracted or corrected articles are not more contradicted in scholarly articles than those that are neither retracted nor corrected but they do generate more comments on Pubpeer, presumably because of the possibility for contributors to remain anonymous. Moreover, post-publication peer review platforms, although external to the scientific publication process contribute more to the correction of science than negative citations. Consequently, post-publication peer review venues, and more specifically the comments found on it, although not contributing to the scientific literature, are a mechanism for correcting science. Lastly, we introduced the idea of strengthening the role of contradicting citations to rehabilitate the clear expression of judgment in scientific papers.