As I noted in my most recent post, the first Improving Biomedical Research conference occurred last week at Stanford. This was a meta-research initiative, aimed at improving the process of conducting biomedical research in order to stimulate more reliable and actionable results.
During the second day of the conference ideas emerged for an agenda that would bring this reality to pass. These are still in an inchoate stage, although given the passion of the attendees I do believe real progress will occur (which is certainly not a given at meetings like this). For a flavor of the discussion and proposals, peruse the hashtag #METRICSConf15.
One more fleshed out idea, that actually emerged in the opening session, is to conduct a comprehensive and authoritative study of the value and effects of peer review. This idea arose from Drummond Rennie, perhaps the world's foremost authority on peer review. For years concerns about how objective and reliable peer review is have been bubbling along, from Richard Smith among others. Given this I think that Rennie's proposal -- of course, the devil will be in the details -- is excellent and apropos.