Is this ever going to end? Meta-research in the age of endless evidence

The pace of scientific research has accelerated exponentially over the past few decades with the number of published studies growing at an increasingly frantic pace, However, interpreting this vast body of evidence is not always straightforward, as results are often contradictory, and the ongoing replication crisis remains a major concern. Meta-research emerged as a potential solution aimed at synthesizing evidence. Systematic reviews came first, followed shortly by meta-analyses of all kinds (pairwise, network, individual patient data, and more). Then came umbrella reviews. Now, living reviews have become the trend, aiming to continuously integrate new evidence as it emerges. But is this the definitive solution to the crisis of evidence? Or are we simply investing time, effort, and resources into repackaging existing evidence instead of generating truly new knowledge? Meta-research has undeniable strengths: it provides a summary of vast amounts of data, enhances statistical power, and helps clarify inconsistencies, guiding evidence-based decision-making. However, it is not the flawless, neutral tool it’s often perceived to be. It comes with its own biases and pitfalls, and subjective decisions in study selection, statistical methods, and interpretation can shape conclusions in unexpected ways. Instead of providing clarity, are we sometimes just adding another layer of complexity?

This Campfire Session is designed as an interactive debate with ample opportunity for audience participation. The goal is to spark new ideas about the future of meta-research, evidence generation, and the broader direction of neuroscience research.