Call for Papers: Waste in Research
Research waste refers to wasting scientific resources, most notably funding, due to poor practices that prevent scientific findings from translating into meaningful, real-world outcomes. While estimating the exact annual cost of this waste is challenging, some figures suggest a loss of up to 85% in total global biomedical research funding, or approximately US $228 billion of the US $268 billion spent annually, yielding no practical benefit.
A growing body of metascientific evidence demonstrates that a significant portion of published research carries methodological and statistical shortcomings that severely compromise both internal and external validity. This systemic issue frequently stems from misaligned research priorities, flawed study designs, the incorrect application of statistical analyses, and publication bias, among other poor scientific practices.
The consequences of research waste are significant to patients, the public, and policymakers. For example, poorly conducted research has limited real-world and clinical utility, can harm patients and the public, and limits the extent to which scientific findings can guide policymakers. Beyond the severe strain on funding, research waste can represent an important missed opportunity to inform public policy and improve clinical outcomes that matter most to patients and society.
JMIR Metascience and Research Integrity invites submissions such as empirical research articles, viewpoints, research letters, and systematic or umbrella reviews focused on “research on research” (metascience) that explore the shortcomings of published literature and investigate its negative impact on real-world outcomes.
Submissions may explore, but are not limited to, the following topics:
- Research prioritization, which explores the alignment of research questions with societal, patient, and public needs through participatory research, rather than relying solely on outcomes prioritized by researchers. When research fails to align with these needs, it often produces outcomes that lack real-world relevance, ultimately wasting research efforts and hindering translation for the public and patients.
- Misapplication of research methodologies or statistical analyses, which can compromise the evidence base by generating inaccurate and imprecise outcome estimates. These flawed estimates waste research efforts, as they limit the extent to which findings can be generalized and successfully translated into real-world settings.
- Redundancy in evidence synthesis, resulting from the methodology, execution, and proliferation of redundant research, particularly secondary evidence syntheses (eg, systematic reviews). This includes exploring the overlap of primary studies across multiple reviews and how this redundancy wastes resources and distorts the perceived weight of clinical evidence.
- Reporting quality and bias, including how poor reporting practices and publication bias distort the scientific evidence base, limiting the extent to which it can be translated into the real world. This lack of clarity leads to the misapplication of findings in clinical settings, which not only wastes research and health care resources but also risks patient harm and compromises public health.
- Statistical power and reliability, including how underpowered research undermines the reliability of scientific outcomes by inflating the risk of both false positives and false negatives, leading to wasted research efforts because the lack of statistical power limits the extent to which study findings can be generalized or translated to the real world.
- Citation practices and bias, including the undercitation of nonsignificant findings, the miscitation of existing literature, and the selective use of prior evidence in grant applications, which distort the research landscape. These biased practices mislead funding agencies into supporting studies with low prior probabilities, which are less likely to yield true-positive, meaningful outcomes, ultimately wasting valuable research funds.
- The impact of the replication crisis, including how systemic reproducibility issues affect the reliability of foundational research and dictate the trajectory of future scientific research. Relying on a skewed and biased evidence base diminishes the probability that subsequent studies will detect true-positive effects, perpetuating a cycle of research waste.
How to Submit:
Submit your paper to JMIR Metascience and Research Integrity by selecting “Waste in Research” in the “Section” drop-down list. See the article How do I submit to a theme issue? in our Knowledge Base and consult our Instructions for Authors for more information.
All submissions will undergo a rigorous peer-review process, and accepted articles will be published under the theme “Waste in Research” in JMIR Metascience and Research Integrity.
All peer-reviewed articles will be made immediately and permanently open access.
Articles will be made immediately available in JMIR Preprints (with a DOI) if authors select this option at submission.