Abstract

Metascientists observe, critique, and try to improve the culture and conduct of science. And yet, the same credibility damaging behaviors that may be critiqued by metascientists could be practiced by metascientists too. How does metascience ensure skeptical inquiry of itself? Where are present weaknesses that need to be addressed? What are particularly good examples to model or expand? Are there systems solutions that are distinct or build on the very systems that metascientists advocate for critique and self-correction in research generally?