Since the 2010s, the replication crisis has caused many scientists to experience deep worry and skepticism. In response, an optimistic wave of researchers has taken the lead, turning their scientific eyes onto science itself to make science better. These metascientists have made progress in studying the causes of the crisis and proposing solutions. They have identified questionable research practices and bad statistics as potential culprits and devised various statistical and publication reforms as solutions. The term "metascience" is not new. However, metascience is only now becoming an institutionalized discipline: there is a growing community of practitioners, societies, dedicated conferences, and research centers. This rapid growth sparks intriguing philosophical questions: Where did metascience come from? Where does the novelty of metascience lie? How does metascience relate to other fields that study science? Is metascience only about collecting data, or is there something deeper at play? This talk dives into these questions. I explore three different models of discipline creation and assess how they can make sense of the emergence of metascience, identifying what's novel and epistemically fruitful in the field and its risks.