# Metascience Alliance - Initial Concept and Request for Feedback

**URL:** <https://onscienceandacademia.org/t/metascience-alliance-initial-concept-and-request-for-feedback/2257>\
**Category:** Open and replicable science\
**Tags:** cos\
**Created:** [February 20, 2025, 12:14pm UTC](https://onscienceandacademia.org/t/metascience-alliance-initial-concept-and-request-for-feedback/2257 "2025-02-20T12:14:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/439d5e/32.png) [@Gavin](https://onscienceandacademia.org/u/Gavin)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2025, 12:14pm UTC](https://onscienceandacademia.org/t/metascience-alliance-initial-concept-and-request-for-feedback/2257/1 "2025-02-20T12:14:42Z")

</div>

> The Metascience Alliance is launching at [Metascience2025](https://metascience.info/)! This new cross-sector network is building collaboration to better understand & improve the research system.
> 
> Read the concept: [Metascience Alliance - Initial Concept and Request for Feedback - Google Docs](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EKSIc7V1gsM7g5_JBuNWtU20abm6x7BhIHI7N6wbrkg/edit?tab=t.0)
> 
> Share feedback: [Metascience Alliance - Initial Concept Feedback](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeGnAVX5hiZk-0cSLxzwkiGjOZWU1CcY5D8TGKJow4MPQdXfg/viewform)
> 
> Join the mailing list: [Metascience Alliance](https://mailchi.mp/c1fc9c67fa5f/metascience-alliance)

What do you think about this initiative? (if you reply here, don’t forget to send feedback at the link above)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/439d5e/32.png) [@Gavin](https://onscienceandacademia.org/u/Gavin)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2025, 12:16pm UTC](https://onscienceandacademia.org/t/metascience-alliance-initial-concept-and-request-for-feedback/2257/2 "2025-02-20T12:16:19Z")

</div>

My main point of feedback is that the purpose of ‘maximizing impact’ is ambiguous. What is impact - citations, policy influence, commercialization outcomes, social media reach, etc? Without qualification, impact can also be negative, in which case it should probably be minimized. So I think that this would be better re-phrased as something like ‘maximizing positive impact’, or even better ‘maximizing societal benefits’.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![daaronr](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/onscienceandacademia.org/daaronr/32/733_2.png) [@daaronr](https://onscienceandacademia.org/u/daaronr)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2025, 6:28pm UTC](https://onscienceandacademia.org/t/metascience-alliance-initial-concept-and-request-for-feedback/2257/3 "2025-03-18T18:28:05Z")

</div>

At [Unjournal.org](http://Unjournal.org), when we prioritize “what research should we commission evaluate” as well as “what should evaluators consider” the focus is indeed (mainly) on maximizing the social benefits of the research, of the evaluation process, and of the research environment this will engender. Although not everyone on our team has the same perspective, and we allow diversity, one of the major approaches is “value of information”.

E.g., for one of our recent initiatives, “[Pivotal Questions](https://globalimpact.gitbook.io/the-unjournal-project-and-communication-space/pivotal-questions)”, we ask organizations

> Which open questions most affect your policies and funding recommendations?

> For which questions would research yield the highest ‘value of information’?

See some elaboration of this at the link.