Supporting study registration to reduce research waste
- PMID: 38839851
- DOI: 10.1038/s41559-024-02433-5
Supporting study registration to reduce research waste
Abstract
An estimated 82-89% of ecological research and 85% of medical research has limited or no value to the end user because of various inefficiencies. We argue that registration and registered reports can enhance the quality and impact of ecological research. Drawing on evidence from other fields, chiefly medicine, we support our claim that registration can reduce research waste. However, increasing registration rates, quality and impact will be very slow without coordinated effort of funders, publishers and research institutions. We therefore call on them to facilitate the adoption of registration by providing adequate support. We outline several aspects to be considered when designing a registration system that would best serve the field of ecology. To further inform the development of such a system, we call for more research to identify the causes of low registration rates in ecology. We suggest short- and long-term actions to bolster registration and reduce research waste.
© 2024. Springer Nature Limited.
Similar articles
-
Quantifying research waste in ecology.Nat Ecol Evol. 2022 Sep;6(9):1390-1397. doi: 10.1038/s41559-022-01820-0. Epub 2022 Jul 21. Nat Ecol Evol. 2022. PMID: 35864230 Review.
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health.Ann Glob Health. 2023 Mar 21;89(1):23. doi: 10.5334/aogh.4056. eCollection 2023. Ann Glob Health. 2023. PMID: 36969097 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research.Lancet. 2014 Jan 18;383(9913):257-66. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5. Epub 2014 Jan 8. Lancet. 2014. PMID: 24411650 Free PMC article.
-
Towards transparency: adoption of WHO best practices in clinical trial registration and reporting among top medical research funders in the USA.BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024 Mar 21;29(2):79-86. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112395. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024. PMID: 37932014
Cited by
-
Evidence to practice - lessons learnt in developing an implementation strategy for an online digital health intervention (Eczema Care Online).BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Jan 31;25(1):187. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-12179-2. BMC Health Serv Res. 2025. PMID: 39891107 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Purgar, M., Klanjscek, T. & Culina, A. Quantifying research waste in ecology. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1390–1397 (2022). - PubMed
-
- Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015).
-
- Chalmers, I. & Glasziou, P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374, 86–89 (2009). - PubMed
-
- O’Dea, R. E. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension. Biol. Rev. 96, 1695–1722 (2021). - PubMed
-
- Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P. & Pullin, A. S. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ. Evid. 7, 7 (2018).
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous