Meta-science in neuroscience: why we need to study how we research the brain

Abstract

Neuroscience has undergone unprecedented growth driven by technological, methodological, and analytical advances that have substantially expanded our understanding of the brain. However, this rapid development has not always been accompanied by a proportional reflection on how neuroscientific knowledge is produced, evaluated, and interpreted. In this context, meta-science emerges as a critical framework for systematically examining research practices, epistemological assumptions, and the dynamics of scientific knowledge production. This article provides a narrative and reflective review of the role of meta-science in neuroscience, aiming to explain why this field requires a specific meta-scientific approach. Key structural challenges in neuroscientific research are discussed, including the intrinsic complexity of the brain as an object of study, the reliance on proxy variables, high interindividual variability, methodological and analytical biases, and persistent issues related to reproducibility and clinical translation. The implications of these challenges for evidence-based medicine and clinical decision-making are also examined, highlighting risks such as overinterpretation of findings, conflation of statistical significance with clinical relevance, and premature implementation of insufficiently validated results. Additionally, the article reflects on the roles of researchers, peer reviewers, editors, and scientific journals as central actors in shaping a more rigorous, transparent, and responsible neuroscientific ecosystem.