Research waste
Research waste refers to the unnecessary loss of valuable resources in scientific research. This includes time, money, and effort that could have been used more effectively.[1] It often results from poor planning, incomplete reporting, biased research methods, or failure to publish results. Simply, it means research that does not benefit society as much as it could.[2]
History
The idea of research being wasted was first proposed by Douglas Altman in 1994, with the discourse of poor research.[3] The concept of research waste was first defined in 2009 by Sir Iain Chalmers and Paul Glasziou, who estimated that up to 85% of health research may be wasted. [4] They highlighted major issues like inadequate study design, lack of transparency, and selective publication of positive results. Their work sparked a global conversation about improving research quality and accountability.
In 2014, The Lancet published five papers about different kinds of research waste.[5][6][7][8][9] This series became quite popular, raising awareness of the issue and sparking continued debate towards the subject. To this date, there is still no precise estimate of how much research is wasted and how to examine this issue. [10]
Definition
A large scoping review from 2024 proposed the MINUS framework, which categorises research waste into five aspects: Methodological, Invisible, Negligible, Underreported, and Structural research waste. [11]
Methodological research waste
Methodological research waste occurs when studies are poorly designed, leading to unreliable or unusable results. This may include inadequate sample sizes, improper randomization, insufficient blinding, or inappropriate statistical analysis. Studies with methodological flaws are unlikely to contribute valuable evidence and may mislead healthcare providers and policymakers.
Invisible research waste
Invisible research waste refers to research that is conducted but never shared publicly. This includes studies that are not published, results that remain in inaccessible repositories, or findings that are only partially reported. When research is not visible, other researchers cannot learn from or build upon it, reducing the overall value of scientific efforts.
Negligible research waste
Negligible research waste arises from conducting unnecessary, redundant studies or a lack of meaningful impact. This often happens when researchers do not perform systematic reviews to identify existing knowledge gaps or when studies replicate findings without justifiable reasons. Negligible waste diverts resources from more valuable inquiries and slows scientific progress.
Underreported research waste
Underreported research waste is caused by incomplete or unclear research methods and reporting of results. Without sufficient detail, other researchers cannot accurately interpret, replicate, or verify the findings. Poor reporting standards also limit the ability of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to generate reliable conclusions.
Structural research waste
Structural waste results from systemic inefficiencies within research institutions, funding bodies, and publishing platforms. This may involve inadequate peer review processes, misaligned incentives prioritising some diseases over others, and a lack of dissemination of articles and the implementation of the research. Addressing structural waste requires coordinated efforts to establish stronger research governance and accountability mechanisms.
References
- ↑ Fisher, DJ; Burdett, S; Vale, C; White, IR; Tierney, JF (2022). "Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change". Systematic Reviews. 11 (1): 274. doi:10.1186/s13643-022-02137-6. PMC 9755764 Check
|pmc=value (help). PMID 36527153 Check|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Cordier, R (2021). "The research challenges we face: identifying and minimising research waste". Aust Occup Ther J. 68 (1): 1–2. doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12719. PMID 33415758 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Altman, DG (1994). "The scandal of poor medical research". BMJ. 308 (6924): 283–4. doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283. PMC 2539276. PMID 8124111.
- ↑ Chalmers, I; Glasziou, P (2009). "Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence". The Lancet. 374 (9683): 86–9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9. PMID 19525005.
- ↑ Al-Shahi Salman, R; Beller, E; Kagan, J . (2014). "Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management". The Lancet. 383 (9912): 176–85. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62297-7. PMC 3952153. PMID 24411646.
- ↑ Chan, AW; Song, F; Vickers, A . (2014). "Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research". The Lancet. 383 (9913): 257–66. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5. PMC 4533904. PMID 24411650.
- ↑ Chalmers, I; Bracken, MB; Djulbegovic, B; Garattini, S; Grant, J . (2014). "How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set". The Lancet. 383 (9912): 156–65. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1. PMID 24411644.
- ↑ Glasziou, P; Altman, DG; Bossuyt, P; Boutron, I; Clarke, M . (2014). "Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research". The Lancet. 383 (9913): 267–76. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X. PMID 24411647.
- ↑ Ioannidis, JPA; Greenland, S; Hlatky, MA; Khoury, MJ . (2014). "Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis". The Lancet. 383 (9912): 166–75. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8. PMC 4697939. PMID 24411645.
- ↑ Rosengaard, Louise Olsbro; Andersen, MIkkel Zola; Rosenberg, Jacob; Fonnes, Siv (2024). "Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review". PeerJ. 12: e18466. doi:10.7717/peerj.18466. PMC 11580664 Check
|pmc=value (help). PMID 39575170 Check|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Rosengaard, Louise Olsbro; Andersen, Mikkel Zola; Rosenberg, Jacob; Fonnes, Siv (2024). "Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: a scoping review". J Evid Based Med. 17 (2): 351–9. doi:10.1111/jebm.12616. PMID 38798014 Check
|pmid=value (help).
This article "Research waste" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Research waste. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
