| # Recursive Epistemics prior-art programme |
|
|
| **Status:** source-review programme; no novelty claim. |
|
|
| The project uses "Recursive Epistemics / Rekursive Epistemik" as a working project term. |
| Before any formal novelty claim, a systematic prior-art search must test whether the same |
| or materially equivalent concept already exists under other names. |
|
|
| Minimum search families: |
| - meta-research / metascience and research-on-research; |
| - provenance-aware scientific workflows; |
| - reproducible computational science and workflow audit; |
| - research integrity and evidence-status separation; |
| - human-AI scientific collaboration and AI-assisted authorship; |
| - reflexive methodology / second-order observation; |
| - epistemic vigilance, source dependence and circular citation; |
| - preregistration, registered reports and claim-evidence traceability. |
|
|
| ## Current standards anchors |
|
|
| The standards mapping for authorship/accountability must record exact versions and access |
| dates. The 2026 study-design baseline includes: |
| - ICMJE Recommendations, January 2026, including AI-use guidance; |
| - ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022 CRediT; |
| - ALLEA European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, 2023 Revised Edition; |
| - current DFG guidance applicable at execution. |
|
|
| These standards are normative/context sources, not empirical support for MHRN technical |
| claims. |
|
|
| ## Deliverable |
|
|
| The review must produce: search strings, databases/sites, dates, inclusion/exclusion |
| rules, deduplication, screened records, concept matrix, nearest prior art, negative search |
| limitations and a bounded novelty statement. Until then, novelty status is `open`. |
|
|
