Exploring undiscovered public knowledge in neuroscience.

In this essay, I argue that the combination of research synthesis and philosophical methods can fill an important methodological gap in neuroscience. While experimental research and formal modelling have seen their methods progressively increase in rigour and sophistication over the years, the task of analysing and synthesizing the vast literature reporting new results and models has lagged behind. The problem is aggravated because neuroscience has grown and expanded into a vast mosaic of related but partially independent subfields, each with their own literatures. This fragmentation not only makes it difficult to see the full picture emerging from neuroscience research but also limits progress in individual subfields. The current neuroscience literature has the perfect conditions to create what the information scientist Don Swanson called "undiscovered public knowledge"-knowledge that exists in the mutual implications of different published pieces of information but that is nonetheless undiscovered because those pieces have not been explicitly connected. Current methods for rigorous research synthesis, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses, mostly focus on combining similar studies and are not suited for exploring undiscovered public knowledge. To that aim, they need to be adapted and supplemented. I argue that successful exploration of the hidden implications in the neuroscience literature will require the combination of these adapted research synthesis methods with philosophical methods for rigorous (and creative) analysis and synthesis.