Undisciplined
Future models of funding and evaluating transdisciplinary research [completed]
Future models of funding and evaluating transdisciplinary research [completed]
Research funding landscape analysis
RoRI Atlas of Peer Review
Advancing Research on Research Use to Enhance Positive Impact
The uses and evaluation of researchers’ narrative CVs
Translating Publish-Review-Curate outputs into actionable signals for research funders: A MetaROR Study
A study of cumulative advantages in funding allocation [completed]
Getting responsible about AI and machine learning in research funding and evaluation [completed]
A Secure Collaboration Hub for Metascience
Exploring gender inequality in research funding
New geographies of research assessment
Translating Publish-Review-Curate outputs into actionable signals for research funders: A MetaROR Study
The Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model adopted by MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review), removes the binary “accept/reject” gate from the assessment of scholarly contributions. The evaluation process of articles submitted to the platform, through peer reviews and an editorial assessment, is openly accessible, and the measure of value is apparent from a qualitative perspective.

While this transparency accelerates knowledge flow, funders still struggle to recognise PRC outputs when allocating scarce resources. This mixed‑methods project will:

| Objective | Research questions |
| Map perceptions | How do funders currently view reviewed preprints and PRC artefacts? Which incentives or constraints shape adoption? |
| Diagnose resistance | Why do some expert reviewers continue to consult traditional bibliometrics despite new policies? (+funders) |
| Co‑design solutions | Which metadata fields, visual cues, and narrative elements help evaluators make confident, fair judgements within time pressure? |
| Pilot & evaluate | Does the prototype “PRC Evaluation Summary” improve funder decision‑making efficiency, transparency and satisfaction? |
| Work package | Activities | Deliverables |
| 1. Landscape exploration (funders) | Discussion with MetaROR steering group | Survey design from findings |
| 2. Funder survey | Online survey of organisations in the RoRI network | Report on funder perceptions & readiness. |
| 3. In‑depth interviews | Semi‑structured interviews with programme officers selected from the survey. | Thematic analysis identifying pain points & emerging good practice. |
| 4. Reviewer survey (conditional) | If respondents cite reviewer resistance, deploy a survey to reviewers (via funders). | Dataset on reviewer attitudes. |
| 5. Synthesis & dissemination | Analyse results from the survey(s) and interviews, relating these with relevant literature. | Policy brief; Working paper (preprint) |
| 6. Design sprints with the MetaROR team | Co‑create metadata schema, UX wireframes & dashboard output. | Alpha prototypes; documentation. |
| 7. Pilot implementation | Integrate prototypes into MetaROR | An evaluation component integrated into MetaROR |
The MetaROR platform launched in November 2024 and the project based on the platform runs until April 2026.
| Work package | Months |
| 1. Landscape exploration (funders) | April – June 2025 |
| 2. Funder survey | July – August 2025 |
| 3. In‑depth interviews | September- October 2025 |
| 4. Reviewer survey (conditional) | November – December 2025 |
| 5. Synthesis & dissemination | January – April 2026 |
| 6. Design sprints with the MetaROR team | TBD |
| 7. Pilot implementation | TBD |
The MetaROR project is at an early stage (as the MetaROR platform needed to be operational for a certain period before the research can take place). We anticipate project outputs to include:
To build MetaROR into a community-driven collaboration that reflects the rich and growing diversity of metaresearch, we hope to further expand its project and editorial team. We invite anyone interested in contributing to MetaROR’s development and implementation to reach out to us.
We publish timely essays, reflections and signals from across metascience, research policy and reform. Expect original thinking, reactions to live debates, and practical insights from people studying research.