Find what you're looking for

Popular Pages

META-MOMENT

Summary

Metascience is exploding into the mainstream. Its simple premise – to turn the data and methods of science back towards analysing and improving science itself – is increasingly being adopted and advanced by governments, funding agencies and researchers themselves. 

These agendas aren’t new: metascience builds on longstanding research into research systems. But there is now a growing cadre of researchers, policymakers and practitioners – in universities, tech companies, funding agencies, private labs and foundations – who are deploying advanced methods and data to investigate and improve how research operates, is funded and evaluated. 

Worldwide, we see new initiatives, investments and alliances being set up to strengthen the field – including the Metascience Alliance, launched at the RoRI-hosted Metascience 2025 meeting last summer.

Our new META-MOMENT project seeks to capture these dynamics of growth and transformation. The project will map and analyse the changing mix of institutions, investments, infrastructures, and capabilities for metascience across 21 countries: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Namibia, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, the UK, and the United States.

By providing the most comprehensive overview of metascience in national R&D systems to date, the project aims to inform and inspire policymakers, funders, metascience researchers and decision-makers worldwide.

Many initiatives end up holding each other back through parallel activities; in other words, similar data and insights are often gained multiple times instead of building on one another. The META-MOMENT project aims to get around this by bringing together different strands of work from different regions on the topic of metascience and related themes.

Falk Reckling, FWF-Austria and Co-Chair of the META-MOMENT Working Group 

RoRI Project team

James Wilsdon (RoRI, UCL) – Project lead

Ludo Waltman (RoRI, CWTS) – Project lead

Jen Gold (UKRI & Co-Director, UK Metascience Unit) – Co-chair, Working Group

Falk Reckling (FWF-Austria & RoRI Partnership Board) – Co-chair, Working Group

Josie Coburn (RoRI, UCL) – Research Fellow & Coordinating team

Seunghyun Lee (RoRI, UCL) – Research Fellow & Coordinating team

Andy Stirling (RoRI) – Senior Visiting Fellow

Similo Ngwenya (RoRI, UCL) – British Academy Research Fellow

André Brasil (RoRI & CWTS) – Research Fellow

Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner (RoRI & CWTS) – Senior Research Fellow

Martin Ho (CSTI, University of Cambridge) – Research Fellow

Henry Price (Imperial College) – Research Fellow

Country teams

  • Fiona Fidler (Melbourne University) – Australia team
  • Kate Wiliams (Melbourne University) – Australia team
  • Fallon Mody (Melbourne University) – Australia team
  • Isabella Wagner (FTEval) – Austria team
  • Thomas König, (FORWIT) – Austria team
  • Laetitia Aerts (King Baudouin Foundation) – Belgium team
  • Sofie Bakaert (King Baudouin Foundation) – Belgium team
  • Yohanna Juk (Lab-GEOPI, University of Campinas) – Brazil team
  • Adrianna Bin (Lab-GEOPI, University of Campinas) – Brazil team
  • Sergio Salles Filho (Lab-GEOPI, University of Campinas) – Brazil team
  • Matthew Lucas (The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada) – Canada team
  • Dominique Roche (The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada) – Canada team
  • Alison Bourgon (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) – Canada team
  • Sarah Passmore (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) – Canada team
  • Lin Zhang (National Natural Science Foundation of China, Wuhan University Observatory) – China team
  • Xiaoxuan Li (CAS Evaluation Research Centre) – China team
  • Aruhan Bai (CAS Evaluation Research Centre) – China team
  • Hui Li (Shanghai Institute for Science of Science) – China team
  • Julian David Cortes Sanchez (School of Management and Business, Universidad del Rosario) – Colombia team
  • Diana Catalina Silva Plata (School of Management and Business, Universidad del Rosario) – Colombia team
  • Nicolas Carayol (High Council for the Evaluation of Research and Higher Education, France) – France lead
  • Ulf Tölch (The BIH QUEST Center) – Germany lead
  • Gordon Akon-Yamga (Science and Technology Policy Research Institute CSIR-STEPRI) – Ghana lead
  • Moumita Koley (DST-Center for Policy Research, Indian Institute for Science) – India team
  • Chandan G. Nagarajappa (DST-Center for Policy Research, Indian Institute for Science) – India team
  • Peter Clifford (Research Ireland) – Ireland team
  • Emer Cahill (Research Ireland) – Ireland team
  • Kazuhiro Hayashi (National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Japan) – Japan team
  • Noel Kikuchi (Center for Research and Development Strategy, Japan Science and Technology Agency) – Japan team
  • Agnes Lutomiah (African Centre for Technology Studies) – Kenya lead
  • Young Jin Kim (Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information) – Korea team
  • Seok Min Cho (National Research Foundation of Korea) – Korea team
  • Min Hyung Lee (Science and Technology Policy Institute, Korea) – Korea team
  • Eunjung Shin (Science and Technology Policy Institute, Korea) – Korea team
  • Kelvin Mubiana Katukula (National Commission on Research Science and Technology, Namibia) – Namibia lead
  • Puck Wildschut (NWO) – Netherlands team
  • Leonie van Drooge (ZonMw) – Netherlands team
  • Lillian Margrethe Baltzrud (Research Council of Norway) – Norway team
  • Kristin Oxley (Research Council of Norway) – Norway team
  • Jon Holm (Research Council of Norway) – Norway team
  • Johannes Waage Løvhaug (Research Council of Norway) – Norway team
  • Gunnar Sivertsen (Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education) – Norway team
  • Nosisa Dube (National Research Foundation, South Africa) – South Africa team
  • Gugu Moche (National Research Foundation, South Africa) – South Africa team
  • Tim Errington (Center for Open Science) – United States team
  • John Ioannidis (METRICS, Stanford University) – United States team
  • Steve Goodman (METRICS, Stanford University) – United States team
  • Jen Gold (UK Research and Innovation / DSIT Metascience Unit) – United Kingdom team
  • Jack Leahy (UK Research and Innovation / DSIT Metascience Unit) – United Kingdom team
  • Kirsten Bound (Wellcome) – United Kingdom team

Partner organisations

  • The Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
  • UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
  • Australian Research Council (ARC)
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)
  • King Baudouin Foundation (KBF)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)
  • French National Research Agency (ANR)
  • Research Ireland 
  • Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) 
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  • National Commission on Research, Science and Technology (NCRST), Namibia
  • Dutch Research Council (NWO)
  • Dutch Organisation for Knowledge and Innovation in Health, Healthcare and Well-being (ZonMW)
  • Research Council of Norway (RCN)
  • National Research Foundation, South Africa (NRF) 

The project in detail

Aims and research questions

This tightly focused 15-month project will map and analyse the changing landscapes, infrastructures and capabilities for metascience across a cohort of 21 countries where RoRI has existing partners and networks. It constitutes the most comprehensive comparative study of metascience in national R&D systems to date, and aims to spark interest and engagement from policymakers, research funders and decision-makers worldwide.

The project will map policies, investments, institutions, networks, disciplines, and data systems – with a particular focus on the role of research funders. 

Using a mix of methods, we will address the following research questions across a cohort of countries where RoRI has existing partners and networks. Confirmed case study countries include: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Namibia, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We will also examine EU-wide frameworks through Horizon Europe, the European Research Council, and emerging plans for Framework Programme 10

Definitions & framingsWhat are the dominant framings or descriptions of metascience? How do these relate and build upon longstanding framings and debates in research and innovation policy and funding? What are the similarities and differences in framings across our sample?
Policy contextAcross a given national system, what is the status and direction of policy, strategy and investment in metascience activities, infrastructures and capabilities? 
Institutions, actors and networksWhat or who are the main actors in metascience at a national level (people, institutions, networks, disciplines)? What are the motivations for this activity and engagement? 
Research communitiesWhere is metascience being done? How much is being driven by more specialised research communities (e.g. in scientometrics, STS or reproducibility ), by government policymakers, research funders, other practitioners or researchers from other fields?
Topics & methodsWhat range of research methods are being used and how is this changing? What research topics are dominant?
Opportunities, risks and challengesWhat opportunities and risks do the main actors perceive in and around metascience (e.g. improvements to evidence-informed decision-making; or potential co-option by ‘big tech’). How does metascience ‘open up’ and how might it ‘close down’ S&I policy and decision-making (Stirling, 2008)? What critical perspectives are being articulated towards metascience at a national level, by which range of voices? Are these being listened to?  
Future directionsWhat are the future possibilities for metascience in research systems worldwide? How can this project support RoRI partners and others to navigate this “metascientific moment” in ways that are constructive and positive for the reforms and improvements to research systems and cultures that we want to see?
National/global systems, capabilities & infrastructures What elements of metascience systems, capabilities and infrastructures are most effectively developed at a national level, and where does international collaboration have a role? What scope exists for forms of ‘metascience diplomacy’ in sharing and transferring policies and practices?

Background and context: This metascientific moment

This project starts from the idea that we are experiencing a ‘metascientific moment’, with metascience growing rapidly across global research systems.

Metascience has deep roots and many branches, and builds on long-established communities in scientometrics, science and technology studies (STS), science policy and innovation studies (SPIS), higher education studies, and philosophy and history of science. 

However, it would be a mistake to see it as a ‘new’ or ‘emerging’ discipline. Metascience has a more active and practical character, reflecting Peterson and Panofsky’s (2023) observation that it has arisen as a meeting point for three communities: the efficiency-driven priorities of the science of science, alongside the value-driven goals of the open science and reproducibility movements. 

Peterson, D., Panofsky, A., 2023. Metascience as a Scientific Social Movement. Minerva 61, 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-023-09490-3

At RoRI, we understand metascience not as a discipline, but as a mode of engaging with questions that most researchers, research funders, policymakers, publishers and other research system actors encounter periodically in their networks, institutions and daily work. In its recent work, RoRI has also described the metascience community as a discourse coalition and source of collective intelligence for policymakers, funders and decision makers.

Methodology and Work Plan

META-MOMENT is a cross-sectional study, which will explore the state of the art of metascience at this moment in time. Necessarily timebound and focused in its design, the study will capture an overview of national systems of metascience, using a sampling frame of between 12 and 20 countries (subject to final confirmation of partners).

Within this frame we will collect and identify a variety of data and evidence to investigate the phenomenon of metascience as it is understood and practiced now. The resultant report will synthesise a purposive jigsaw of evidence creating a multi-faceted, insightful overview of metascience practice. 

The study will consist of six work packages (WPs): 

  • WP 1: Rapid evidence maps to inform a ‘living review’
  • WP 2: Scientometric analysis
  • WP 3: Network analysis
  • WP 4: Expert interviews
  • WP 5: National system workshops (online or in-person), and an in-person side event at the Global Research Council annual meeting in May 2026
  • WP 6: Analysis, synthesis and conclusions

We have chosen these methods because they will allow different and complementary ways to understand how metascience is evolving, who is involved, and what the barriers and facilitators to its uptake and effectiveness are across a range of national contexts. 

Project timeline

META-MOMENT will run from November 2025 to February 2027.

The final report of the project will be launched at the RoRI Consortium Meeting in November 2026, with accompanying data and outputs launched alongside it and further deliverables following in the subsequent months.

RoRI Executive Director James Wilsdon introduces META-MOMENT to research funding leaders at the 14th GRC Annual Meeting in Bangkok