The Unjournal commissioned two evaluations of "Meaningfully reducing consumption of meat and animal products is an unsolved problem: A meta-analysis" by Seth Ariel Green, Benny Smith, and Maya B Mathur. See our evaluation package here.

My take: the research was ambitious and useful, but it seems to have important limitations, as noted in the critical evaluations; Matthew Janés evaluation provided constructive and actionable insights and suggestions.

I'd like to encourage follow-up research on this same question, starting with this paper's example and its shared database (demonstrating commendable transparency), taking these suggestions on board, and building something even more comprehensive and rigorous.

Do you agree? I come back to some 'cruxes' below:

1. Is meta-analysis even useful in these contexts, with heterogeneous interventions, outcomes, and analytical approaches?
2. Would a more rigorous and systematic approach really add value? Should it follow academic meta-analysis standards, or "a distinct vision of what meta-analysis is for, and how to conduct it" (as Seth suggests)?
3. Will anyone actually do/fund/reward rigorous continued work?

Post continues on the EA Forum

10 Nov 2025: I moved this from being a cross-post to a link post as Idecided to edit this a bit in response to some comments on the EA forum and I don't want to take the time to keep the two versions in sync