Despite Asimov's opinion on the matter, it seems that in reality the meta-analysis is a useful tool for understanding the de facto scientific consensus on some topic beyond the scope of a single paper/study.
I think the original naive critique is valid though. What if the consensus is wrong? But of course, it's better than one random study, unless you particularly trust that researcher and none of the others.
Still not sure where he mentions it in the series, but I wonder if it's Asimov making up a far futuristic galactic version of Scholasticism, with its focus on reinterpreting existing works, for his far future version of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.