[rscho]

As a clinical researcher, I wholeheartedly agree. Even worse, meta analysis is comparatively so well cited (even shitty ones) that doing anything else, such as original research, will be suboptimal since the reduced time investment allows you to publish nonstop. Truly, meta analysis has become a blood-ducking parasite of medical science.

I know many young researchers who've specialized in meta analysis for that reason.

[nerdponx]

Isn't there tremendous real value in meta-analysis? The problem seems to lie in how credit is allocated (via citations).

[n4r9]

I'd argue the problem is a combination of citations and short-termism. We don't give researchers the space to do something novel, because institutions demand results in the short term. If you give someone a tangible, quantifiable demand A and a nebulous, low-priority demand B, they will spend nearly 100% of their time chasing A. Truly novel results can take months or years of hard focus; every grant proposal, teaching duty, and routine publication is a distraction.

[einpoklum]

> Isn't there tremendous real value in meta-analysis?

There's also tremendous value in doing the dishes and mopping the floor. Without it we'd get diseases and live in filth. And when we do this, we should be respected and appreciated. But - not as brilliant trail-blazers.