Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Sep;6(9):1390-1397.
doi: 10.1038/s41559-022-01820-0. Epub 2022 Jul 21.

Quantifying research waste in ecology

Affiliations
Review

Quantifying research waste in ecology

Marija Purgar et al. Nat Ecol Evol. 2022 Sep.

Abstract

Research inefficiencies can generate huge waste: evidence from biomedical research has shown that most research is avoidably wasted and steps have been taken to tackle this costly problem. Although other scientific fields could also benefit from identifying and quantifying waste and acting to reduce it, no other estimates of research waste are available. Given that ecological issues interweave most of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, we argue that tackling research waste in ecology should be prioritized. Our study leads the way. We estimate components of waste in ecological research based on a literature review and a meta-analysis. Shockingly, our results suggest only 11-18% of conducted ecological research reaches its full informative value. All actors within the research system-including academic institutions, policymakers, funders and publishers-have a duty towards science, the environment, study organisms and the public, to urgently act and reduce this considerable yet preventable loss. We discuss potential ways forward and call for two major actions: (1) further research into waste in ecology (and beyond); (2) focused development and implementation of solutions to reduce unused potential of ecological research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ioannidis, J. P. A., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D. D. & Goodman, S. N. Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002264 (2015). - PubMed - PMC - DOI
    1. Hampton, S. E. et al. The Tao of open science for ecology. Ecosphere 6, art120 (2015). - DOI
    1. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J. & Borenstein, M. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments (John Wiley & Sons, 2005).
    1. Sutton, A. J. in The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (eds Cooper, H. et al.) 435–452 (Russell Sage Foundation, 2009).
    1. Nakagawa, S., Koricheva, J., Macleod, M. & Viechtbauer, W. Introducing our series: research synthesis and meta-research in biology. BMC Biol. 18, 20 (2020). - PubMed - PMC - DOI

LinkOut - more resources