元研究：为何研究研究很重要。
Meta-research: Why research on research matters.
机构信息
Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Department of Medicine, Department of Health Research and Policy, and Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America.
出版信息
PLoS Biol. 2018 Mar 13;16(3):e2005468. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468. eCollection 2018 Mar.
Abstract
Meta-research is the study of research itself: its methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives. Given that science is the key driver of human progress, improving the efficiency of scientific investigation and yielding more credible and more useful research results can translate to major benefits. The research enterprise grows very fast. Both new opportunities for knowledge and innovation and new threats to validity and scientific integrity emerge. Old biases abound, and new ones continuously appear as novel disciplines emerge with different standards and challenges. Meta-research uses an interdisciplinary approach to study, promote, and defend robust science. Major disruptions are likely to happen in the way we pursue scientific investigation, and it is important to ensure that these disruptions are evidence based.
摘要
元研究是对研究本身的研究
包括其方法、报告、可重复性、评估和激励。鉴于科学是人类进步的关键驱动力，提高科学研究的效率并产生更可信和更有用的研究结果可以带来重大的好处。研究活动发展非常迅速。新的知识和创新机会以及对有效性和科学完整性的新威胁不断涌现。旧的偏见比比皆是，随着具有不同标准和挑战的新学科的出现，新的偏见也不断出现。元研究采用跨学科的方法来研究、促进和捍卫稳健的科学。我们追求科学研究的方式可能会发生重大变革，重要的是要确保这些变革是基于证据的。
相似文献
1
Meta-research: Why research on research matters.元研究：为何研究研究很重要。
PLoS Biol. 2018 Mar 13;16(3):e2005468. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468. eCollection 2018 Mar.
2
Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices.元研究：研究方法与实践的评估和改进
PLoS Biol. 2015 Oct 2;13(10):e1002264. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264. eCollection 2015 Oct.
3
Questions for meta-analysis.荟萃分析的问题。
Psychol Rep. 1997 Aug;81(1):3-15. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1997.81.1.3.
4
Field Science--the Nature and Utility of Scientific Fields.实地科学——科学领域的本质与效用
mBio. 2015 Sep 8;6(5):e01259-15. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01259-15.
5
Of apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away.苹果与橙子、文件抽屉与垃圾：为何元分析中的效度问题不会消失。
Clin Psychol Rev. 1997 Dec;17(8):881-901. doi: 10.1016/s0272-7358(97)00056-1.
6
Cross-disciplinary links in environmental systems science: Current state and claimed needs identified in a meta-review of process models.环境系统科学中的跨学科联系：过程模型元综述中确定的现状和声称的需求
Sci Total Environ. 2018 May 1;622-623:954-973. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.007. Epub 2017 Dec 13.
7
Quality of Research Practice - An interdisciplinary face validity evaluation of a quality model.研究实践质量 - 质量模型的跨学科表面有效性评估。
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 1;14(2):e0211636. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211636. eCollection 2019.
8
Fake news and fake research: Why meta-research matters more than ever.虚假新闻与虚假研究：为何元研究比以往任何时候都更重要。
J Paediatr Child Health. 2020 Dec;56(12):1868-1871. doi: 10.1111/jpc.15237. Epub 2020 Oct 21.
9
[Meta-analysis: the science of review in Neurology].[荟萃分析：神经病学中的综述科学]
Rev Neurol. 2005;40(4):222-8.
10
The application of knowledge synthesis methods in agri-food public health: recent advancements, challenges and opportunities.知识综合方法在农业食品公共卫生中的应用：最新进展、挑战与机遇。
Prev Vet Med. 2014 Mar 1;113(4):339-55. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.11.009. Epub 2013 Nov 24.
引用本文的文献
1
The translational science promotion and research capacity (T-SPARC) framework: Developing institutional capacity for translational science.转化科学促进与研究能力（T-SPARC）框架：发展转化科学的机构能力。
J Clin Transl Sci. 2025 Jul 7;9(1):e157. doi: 10.1017/cts.2025.10056. eCollection 2025.
2
Risk of bias and low reproducibility in meta-analytic evidence from fast-tracked publications during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.2019年冠状病毒病大流行期间快速发表的文献中，Meta分析证据存在的偏倚风险和低可重复性。
PNAS Nexus. 2025 Jul 29;4(8):pgaf238. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf238. eCollection 2025 Aug.
3
Transparency, quality, and statistical consistency of meta-analytic systematic reviews in clinical child and adolescent psychology (2022-2024): study protocol for a meta-review.临床儿童与青少年心理学中荟萃分析系统评价的透明度、质量和统计一致性（2022 - 2024）：一项元综述的研究方案
Front Psychol. 2025 Jul 28;16:1535606. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1535606. eCollection 2025.
4
Why too much biomedical research is often undeserving of the public's trust.为何太多的生物医学研究往往辜负公众的信任。
Front Genet. 2025 Jun 26;16:1587616. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2025.1587616. eCollection 2025.
5
Adjusting for covariates representing potential confounders, mediators, or competing predictors in the presence of measurement error: Dispelling a potential misapprehension and insights for optimal study design with nutritional epidemiology examples.在存在测量误差的情况下，对代表潜在混杂因素、中介因素或竞争预测因素的协变量进行调整：消除一种潜在误解，并以营养流行病学实例阐述优化研究设计的见解。
F1000Res. 2025 May 19;13:827. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.152466.2. eCollection 2024.
6
Large Language Models and the Analyses of Adherence to Reporting Guidelines in Systematic Reviews and Overviews of Reviews (PRISMA 2020 and PRIOR).大型语言模型与系统评价及综述概述（PRISMA 2020和PRIOR）中报告指南的依从性分析
J Med Syst. 2025 Jun 12;49(1):80. doi: 10.1007/s10916-025-02212-0.
7
Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study.健康研究人员在解释线性回归假设时存在的常见误解，一项横断面研究。
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 5;20(6):e0299617. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299617. eCollection 2025.
8
Evaluation of intervention systematic reviews on chronic non-communicable diseases and lifestyle risk factors in low-middle income countries: meta-research.低收入和中等收入国家慢性非传染性疾病及生活方式风险因素干预系统评价的评估：元研究
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 Apr 5;25(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02501-9.
9
Why is it important to implement meta-research in universities and institutes with medical research activities?为什么在开展医学研究活动的大学和机构中实施元研究很重要？
Front Res Metr Anal. 2025 Mar 19;10:1497280. doi: 10.3389/frma.2025.1497280. eCollection 2025.
10
A problematic view of peer review; the epistemic distance of medical humanities with medicine.同行评议的一个问题视角；医学人文学科与医学的认知距离。
J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2025 Mar 12;24(1):79. doi: 10.1007/s40200-025-01593-w. eCollection 2025 Jun.
本文引用的文献
1
Meta-assessment of bias in science.科学偏倚的元评估。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Apr 4;114(14):3714-3719. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618569114. Epub 2017 Mar 20.
2
The Reproducibility Wars: Successful, Unsuccessful, Uninterpretable, Exact, Conceptual, Triangulated, Contested Replication.可重复性之争：成功的、失败的、无法解释的、精确的、概念性的、三角测量的、有争议的复制
Clin Chem. 2017 May;63(5):943-945. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2017.271965. Epub 2017 Mar 15.
3
The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise.生物医学文献中期刊同行评审的全球负担：集体事业中的严重不平衡
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 10;11(11):e0166387. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166387. eCollection 2016.
4
The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.冗余、误导性及存在冲突的系统评价和Meta分析的大量产出。
Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485-514. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210.
5
1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility.1500名科学家揭开了可重复性的盖子。
Nature. 2016 May 26;533(7604):452-4. doi: 10.1038/533452a.
6
Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature.生物医学文献中的可重复研究实践与透明度
PLoS Biol. 2016 Jan 4;14(1):e1002333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002333. eCollection 2016 Jan.
7
Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices.元研究：研究方法与实践的评估和改进
PLoS Biol. 2015 Oct 2;13(10):e1002264. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264. eCollection 2015 Oct.
8
On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers.关于准备资助申请的时间：一项对澳大利亚研究人员的观察性研究。
BMJ Open. 2013 May 28;3(5):e002800. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002800.
9
Design and update of a classification system: the UCSD map of science.设计与更新分类系统：圣迭戈加州大学科学图谱。
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e39464. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039464. Epub 2012 Jul 12.
10
Are medical conferences useful? And for whom?医学会议有用吗？对谁有用？
JAMA. 2012 Mar 28;307(12):1257-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.360.
Zotero 插件