Is Research Software Science a Metascience?

TL;DR

Computational methods underpin modern science, necessitating robust, transparent, and reproducible practices; the paper investigates whether Research Software Science (RSS) should be treated as metascience and what that implies for recognition and funding. The paper analyzes definitions, principles, and overlaps between RSS and metascience, presenting arguments for and against classifying RSS as metascience. It argues that RSS advances core metascience goals, particularly computational reproducibility and transparency, while also recognizing RSS as an interdisciplinary domain that may align with metascience depending on the definition used. The authors conclude that acknowledging RSS as either metascience or a closely allied discipline can strengthen funding, elevate software practice in research institutions, and promote rigorous, system-wide improvements in scientific reliability.

Abstract

As research increasingly relies on computational methods, the reliability of scientific results depends on the quality, reproducibility, and transparency of research software. Ensuring these qualities is critical for scientific integrity and discovery. This paper asks whether Research Software Science (RSS)--the empirical study of how research software is developed and used--should be considered a form of metascience, the science of science. Classification matters because it could affect recognition, funding, and integration of RSS into research improvement. We define metascience and RSS, compare their principles and objectives, and examine their overlaps. Arguments for classification highlight shared commitments to reproducibility, transparency, and empirical study of research processes. Arguments against portraying RSS as a specialized domain focused on a tool rather than the broader scientific enterprise. Our analysis finds RSS advances core goals of metascience, especially in computational reproducibility, and bridges technical, social, and cognitive aspects of research. Its classification depends on whether one adopts a broad definition of metascience--any empirical effort to improve science--or a narrow one focused on systemic and epistemological structures. We argue RSS is best understood as a distinct interdisciplinary domain that aligns with, and in some definitions fits within, metascience. Recognizing it as such can strengthen its role in improving reliability, justify funding, and elevate software development in research institutions. Regardless of classification, applying scientific rigor to research software ensures the tools of discovery meet the standards of the discoveries themselves.