• Cochrane-REWARD prize for reducing waste in research

    Waste occurs during 5 stages of research production: question selection, study design, research conduct, publication, and reporting. Much of this waste appears to be avoidable or remediable, but there are few proposed solutions. To stimulate and promote research in this area,, Cochrane is now calling for nominations for the 2018 prize. Nominations should be submitted by 15 May 2018.

  • Improving Reproducible Research Practices in Schools of Public Health

    This one day symposium will bring together key stakeholders in science, including experts from schools of public health and medicine, and will be an ideal platform for discussing ways to promote reproducibility and transparency. Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut on April 16th, 2018

  • Postdoctoral Fellowship in Meta-research 2018-19

    Our postdoctoral fellowship for 2018-19 is now open. Fellowships will focus on METRICS research areas: methods, reporting, evaluation, reproducibility and incentives. Apply today!

  • How to Reward Scientists for Doing Research that Matters

    Earlier this year METRICS brought together scientific thought leaders to Washington, D.C. to discuss how scientists are rewarded for their work. Here we report on some key themes from the workshop.

  • A Manifesto for Reproducible Science

    A call for the adoption of measures to improve key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives.

Latest News

  • Clinical Trial Participants’ Views of the Risks and Benefits of Data Sharing

    Metrics News

    Sharing of participant-level clinical trial data has potential benefits, but concerns about potential harms to research participants have led some pharmaceutical sponsors and investigators to urge caution. Little is known about clinical trial participants’ perceptions of the risks of data sharing.

  • Randomized controlled trials: Often flawed, mostly useless, clearly indispensable: A commentary on Deaton and Cartwright

    Metrics News

    Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have devoted admirers and critics across diverse disciplines. A long-standing debate exists about their relative strengths and weaknesses. In a very thoughtful paper, Deaton and Cartwright (2018) present the latest sequel to these meth- odological ambushes. The points raised are not new, but the overview is extremely helpful. It is also timely, because under the “real-world evidence” buzzword (Miksad and Abernethy, 2018), regulators and other stakeholders seek ways to replace the dominance of traditional RCTs. While real-world evidence” includes RCTs (pragmatic/naturalistic ones), it is mostly fed by spurious non-randomized data (Hemkens et al., 2016). Is this a desirable change in study design priorities or a looming disaster? The current commentary will try to address some key emerging issues.

Latest Blog

All Blogs
  • A Maturing Meta-Science Was On Show In Washington, DC


    Meta-Research is coming of age. This is the energizing insight that I brought home from Washington, DC, where I had joined the recent Sackler Colloquium held at the National Academy of Sciences. Organized by David B. Allison, Richard Shiffrin and Victoria Stodden, and generously supported by the Laura and John Arnold foundation and others, the colloquium brought together experts from all over the academic and geographic world, to discuss “Reproducibility of Research: Issues and Proposed Remedies”.

Latest Publication

All publications