Histories and Futures of Science Reform - from Reporting Guidelines to Metascience

In 1976 Gene Glass conducted the first modern meta-analysis of the effectiveness of psychotherapy. As he read and synthesised hundreds of papers, he "developed a very jaundiced view of the state of research reporting" (Hunt 1997, p. 28). In 1994, less than 20 years later, an international team of editors and publishing professionals developed CONSORT, the first reporting guideline for randomised controlled trials. Today, this checklist is a necessary requirement for publication in most major clinical journals. But what does the development of reporting guidelines for biomedical research tell us about metascience and science reform as we experience it today?

In this talk, I will trace the historical development of reporting guidelines from the 1980s onwards. I will highlight the role of crisis narratives, systematic inquiry and the development of concrete solutions. The findings are based on my doctoral research, which included document analysis, bibliometric analysis and qualitative interviews with guideline developers, editors and users. Based on the findings, I would like to propose and discuss two arguments.
First, science reform and metascience-based interventions, as we are witnessing them today, are not a new phenomenon that has only emerged with increased attention to misconduct or the publication crisis. Second, some of the intellectual and practical roots of the metasciences lie in the emergence of meta-analysis and systematic review as scientific practices in the life sciences.

In contrast to many recent reform proposals and implementations, reporting guidelines have had an impact on biomedical writing for 30 years. By drawing on the experiences of their users, I will conclude with some ideas about how the professionalisation of the metasciences and the proliferation of metascientific knowledge might affect the intellectual (re)organisation of the future science system.