justification of a research project

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write the Rationale of the Study in Research (Examples)

What is the Rationale of the Study?

The rationale of the study is the justification for taking on a given study. It explains the reason the study was conducted or should be conducted. This means the study rationale should explain to the reader or examiner why the study is/was necessary. It is also sometimes called the “purpose” or “justification” of a study. While this is not difficult to grasp in itself, you might wonder how the rationale of the study is different from your research question or from the statement of the problem of your study, and how it fits into the rest of your thesis or research paper. 

The rationale of the study links the background of the study to your specific research question and justifies the need for the latter on the basis of the former. In brief, you first provide and discuss existing data on the topic, and then you tell the reader, based on the background evidence you just presented, where you identified gaps or issues and why you think it is important to address those. The problem statement, lastly, is the formulation of the specific research question you choose to investigate, following logically from your rationale, and the approach you are planning to use to do that.

Table of Contents:

How to write a rationale for a research paper , how do you justify the need for a research study.

• Study Rationale Example: Where Does It Go In Your Paper?

The basis for writing a research rationale is preliminary data or a clear description of an observation. If you are doing basic/theoretical research, then a literature review will help you identify gaps in current knowledge. In applied/practical research, you base your rationale on an existing issue with a certain process (e.g., vaccine proof registration) or practice (e.g., patient treatment) that is well documented and needs to be addressed. By presenting the reader with earlier evidence or observations, you can (and have to) convince them that you are not just repeating what other people have already done or said and that your ideas are not coming out of thin air. 

Once you have explained where you are coming from, you should justify the need for doing additional research–this is essentially the rationale of your study. Finally, when you have convinced the reader of the purpose of your work, you can end your introduction section with the statement of the problem of your research that contains clear aims and objectives and also briefly describes (and justifies) your methodological approach. 

When is the Rationale for Research Written?

The author can present the study rationale both before and after the research is conducted. 

• Before conducting research : The study rationale is a central component of the research proposal . It represents the plan of your work, constructed before the study is actually executed.
• Once research has been conducted : After the study is completed, the rationale is presented in a research article or  PhD dissertation  to explain why you focused on this specific research question. When writing the study rationale for this purpose, the author should link the rationale of the research to the aims and outcomes of the study.

What to Include in the Study Rationale

Although every study rationale is different and discusses different specific elements of a study’s method or approach, there are some elements that should be included to write a good rationale. Make sure to touch on the following:

• A summary of conclusions from your review of the relevant literature
• What is currently unknown (gaps in knowledge)
• Inconclusive or contested results  from previous studies on the same or similar topic
• The necessity to improve or build on previous research, such as to improve methodology or utilize newer techniques and/or technologies

There are different types of limitations that you can use to justify the need for your study. In applied/practical research, the justification for investigating something is always that an existing process/practice has a problem or is not satisfactory. Let’s say, for example, that people in a certain country/city/community commonly complain about hospital care on weekends (not enough staff, not enough attention, no decisions being made), but you looked into it and realized that nobody ever investigated whether these perceived problems are actually based on objective shortages/non-availabilities of care or whether the lower numbers of patients who are treated during weekends are commensurate with the provided services.

In this case, “lack of data” is your justification for digging deeper into the problem. Or, if it is obvious that there is a shortage of staff and provided services on weekends, you could decide to investigate which of the usual procedures are skipped during weekends as a result and what the negative consequences are. 

In basic/theoretical research, lack of knowledge is of course a common and accepted justification for additional research—but make sure that it is not your only motivation. “Nobody has ever done this” is only a convincing reason for a study if you explain to the reader why you think we should know more about this specific phenomenon. If there is earlier research but you think it has limitations, then those can usually be classified into “methodological”, “contextual”, and “conceptual” limitations. To identify such limitations, you can ask specific questions and let those questions guide you when you explain to the reader why your study was necessary:

Methodological limitations

• Did earlier studies try but failed to measure/identify a specific phenomenon?
• Was earlier research based on incorrect conceptualizations of variables?
• Were earlier studies based on questionable operationalizations of key concepts?
• Did earlier studies use questionable or inappropriate research designs?

Contextual limitations

• Have recent changes in the studied problem made previous studies irrelevant?
• Are you studying a new/particular context that previous findings do not apply to?

Conceptual limitations

• Do previous findings only make sense within a specific framework or ideology?

Study Rationale Examples

Let’s look at an example from one of our earlier articles on the statement of the problem to clarify how your rationale fits into your introduction section. This is a very short introduction for a practical research study on the challenges of online learning. Your introduction might be much longer (especially the context/background section), and this example does not contain any sources (which you will have to provide for all claims you make and all earlier studies you cite)—but please pay attention to how the background presentation , rationale, and problem statement blend into each other in a logical way so that the reader can follow and has no reason to question your motivation or the foundation of your research.

Background presentation

Since the beginning of the Covid pandemic, most educational institutions around the world have transitioned to a fully online study model, at least during peak times of infections and social distancing measures. This transition has not been easy and even two years into the pandemic, problems with online teaching and studying persist (reference needed) . 

While the increasing gap between those with access to technology and equipment and those without access has been determined to be one of the main challenges (reference needed) , others claim that online learning offers more opportunities for many students by breaking down barriers of location and distance (reference needed) .  

Rationale of the study

Since teachers and students cannot wait for circumstances to go back to normal, the measures that schools and universities have implemented during the last two years, their advantages and disadvantages, and the impact of those measures on students’ progress, satisfaction, and well-being need to be understood so that improvements can be made and demographics that have been left behind can receive the support they need as soon as possible.

Statement of the problem

To identify what changes in the learning environment were considered the most challenging and how those changes relate to a variety of student outcome measures, we conducted surveys and interviews among teachers and students at ten institutions of higher education in four different major cities, two in the US (New York and Chicago), one in South Korea (Seoul), and one in the UK (London). Responses were analyzed with a focus on different student demographics and how they might have been affected differently by the current situation.

How long is a study rationale?

In a research article bound for journal publication, your rationale should not be longer than a few sentences (no longer than one brief paragraph). A  dissertation or thesis  usually allows for a longer description; depending on the length and nature of your document, this could be up to a couple of paragraphs in length. A completely novel or unconventional approach might warrant a longer and more detailed justification than an approach that slightly deviates from well-established methods and approaches.

Consider Using Professional Academic Editing Services

Now that you know how to write the rationale of the study for a research proposal or paper, you should make use of our free AI grammar checker , Wordvice AI, or receive professional academic proofreading services from Wordvice, including research paper editing services and manuscript editing services to polish your submitted research documents.

You can also find many more articles, for example on writing the other parts of your research paper , on choosing a title , or on making sure you understand and adhere to the author instructions before you submit to a journal, on the Wordvice academic resources pages.

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Justify Your Methods in a Thesis or Dissertation

4-minute read

• 1st May 2023

Writing a thesis or dissertation is hard work. You’ve devoted countless hours to your research, and you want your results to be taken seriously. But how does your professor or evaluating committee know that they can trust your results? You convince them by justifying your research methods.

What Does Justifying Your Methods Mean?

In simple terms, your methods are the tools you use to obtain your data, and the justification (which is also called the methodology ) is the analysis of those tools. In your justification, your goal is to demonstrate that your research is both rigorously conducted and replicable so your audience recognizes that your results are legitimate.

The formatting and structure of your justification will depend on your field of study and your institution’s requirements, but below, we’ve provided questions to ask yourself as you outline your justification.

Why Did You Choose Your Method of Gathering Data?

Does your study rely on quantitative data, qualitative data, or both? Certain types of data work better for certain studies. How did you choose to gather that data? Evaluate your approach to collecting data in light of your research question. Did you consider any alternative approaches? If so, why did you decide not to use them? Highlight the pros and cons of various possible methods if necessary. Research results aren’t valid unless the data are valid, so you have to convince your reader that they are.

How Did You Evaluate Your Data?

Collecting your data was only the first part of your study. Once you had them, how did you use them? Do your results involve cross-referencing? If so, how was this accomplished? Which statistical analyses did you run, and why did you choose them? Are they common in your field? How did you make sure your data were statistically significant ? Is your effect size small, medium, or large? Numbers don’t always lend themselves to an obvious outcome. Here, you want to provide a clear link between the Methods and Results sections of your paper.

Did You Use Any Unconventional Approaches in Your Study?

Most fields have standard approaches to the research they use, but these approaches don’t work for every project. Did you use methods that other fields normally use, or did you need to come up with a different way of obtaining your data? Your reader will look at unconventional approaches with a more critical eye. Acknowledge the limitations of your method, but explain why the strengths of the method outweigh those limitations.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

What Relevant Sources Can You Cite?

You can strengthen your justification by referencing existing research in your field. Citing these references can demonstrate that you’ve followed established practices for your type of research. Or you can discuss how you decided on your approach by evaluating other studies. Highlight the use of established techniques, tools, and measurements in your study. If you used an unconventional approach, justify it by providing evidence of a gap in the existing literature.

Two Final Tips:

●  When you’re writing your justification, write for your audience. Your purpose here is to provide more than a technical list of details and procedures. This section should focus more on the why and less on the how .

●  Consider your methodology as you’re conducting your research. Take thorough notes as you work to make sure you capture all the necessary details correctly. Eliminating any possible confusion or ambiguity will go a long way toward helping your justification.

In Conclusion:

Your goal in writing your justification is to explain not only the decisions you made but also the reasoning behind those decisions. It should be overwhelmingly clear to your audience that your study used the best possible methods to answer your research question. Properly justifying your methods will let your audience know that your research was effective and its results are valid.

Want more writing tips? Check out Proofed’s Writing Tips and Academic Writing Tips blogs. And once you’ve written your thesis or dissertation, consider sending it to us. Our editors will be happy to check your grammar, spelling, and punctuation to make sure your document is the best it can be. Check out our services for free .

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

2-minute read

How to Cite the CDC in APA

If you’re writing about health issues, you might need to reference the Centers for Disease...

5-minute read

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

Introduction If you’re involved with ecommerce, you’re likely familiar with the often painstaking process of...

3-minute read

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

How to Write a Compelling Justification of Your Research

When it comes to conducting research, a well-crafted justification is crucial. It not only helps you convince others of the importance and relevance of your work but also serves as a roadmap for your own research journey. In this blog post, we will focus on the art of writing compelling justifications, highlighting common pitfalls that juniors tend to fall into and providing an example of how to write a justification properly.

The Importance of a Strong Justification

Before we delve into the dos and don’ts of writing a justification, let’s first understand why it is so important. A strong justification sets the stage for your research by clearly outlining its purpose, significance, and potential impact. It helps you answer the question, “Why is this research worth pursuing?” and provides a solid foundation for the rest of your work.

Pitfalls to Avoid

As junior researchers, it’s common to make certain mistakes when writing a justification. Here are a few pitfalls to watch out for:

• Lack of Clarity: One of the biggest mistakes is failing to clearly articulate the problem or research question. Make sure your justification clearly explains what you intend to investigate and why it matters.
• Insufficient Background: Providing a strong background is essential to demonstrate your knowledge of existing literature and the context of your research. Avoid the trap of assuming that your readers are already familiar with the topic.
• Weak Significance: Your justification should emphasize the significance of your research. Highlight the potential benefits, practical applications, or theoretical contributions that your work can offer.
• Lack of Originality: It’s important to showcase the novelty of your research. Avoid simply replicating previous studies or rehashing existing ideas. Instead, highlight the unique aspects of your approach or the gaps in current knowledge that your research aims to fill.

Writing a Proper Justification

Now that we’ve covered the common pitfalls, let’s take a look at an example of how to write a proper justification. Imagine you are conducting research on the low proportion of uncontrolled hypertension in a specific population. Here’s how you could structure your justification:

Introduction: Begin by providing an overview of the problem and its significance. Explain why uncontrolled hypertension is a critical health issue and the potential consequences it can have on individuals and society.

Background: Offer a comprehensive review of the existing literature on hypertension, highlighting the current knowledge gaps and limitations. Discuss the prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension and the factors contributing to its low proportion in the specific population you are studying.

Objectives: Clearly state the objectives of your research. For example, your objectives could be to identify the barriers to hypertension control, evaluate the effectiveness of current interventions, and propose strategies to improve the management of uncontrolled hypertension.

Methodology: Briefly describe the research methods you plan to employ, such as surveys, interviews, or data analysis. Explain how these methods will help you address the research objectives and fill the existing knowledge gaps.

Expected Outcomes: Highlight the potential outcomes and impact of your research. Discuss how your findings could contribute to improving hypertension control rates, enhancing healthcare policies, or guiding future research in this field.

Conclusion: Summarize the main points of your justification and reiterate the significance of your research. Emphasize why your work is unique and necessary to advance knowledge and address the problem of low proportion of uncontrolled hypertension.

Remember, a compelling justification should be concise, persuasive, and grounded in evidence. It should convince your audience that your research is not only relevant but also necessary. By avoiding common pitfalls and following a structured approach, you can craft a justification that captivates readers and sets the stage for a successful research endeavor.

Share your love

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Research proposal, thesis, exegesis, and journal article writing for business, social science and humanities (BSSH) research degree candidates

Topic outline, introduction and research justification.

Introduction and research justification, business, social sciences, humanities

Introduction.

• Signalling the topic in the first sentence
• The research justification or 'problem' statement 
• The 'field' of literature
• Summary of contrasting areas of research
• Summary of the 'gap' in the literature
• Research aims and objectives

Summary of the research design

Example research proposal introductions.

This topic outlines the steps in the introduction of the research proposal. As discussed in the first topic in this series of web resources, there are three key elements or conceptual steps within the main body of the research proposal. In this resource, these elements are referred to as the research justification, the literature review and the research design. These three steps also structure, typically, but not always in this order, the proposal introduction which contains an outline of the proposed research.

These steps pertain to the key questions of reviewers:

• What problem or issue does the research address? (research justification)
• How will the research contribute to existing knowledge? (the 'gap' in the literature, sometimes referred to as the research 'significance')
• How will the research achieve its stated objectives? (the research design)

Reviewers look to find a summary of the case for the research in the introduction, which, in essence, involves providing summary answers to each of the questions above.

The introduction of the research proposal usually includes the following content:

• a research justification or statement of a problem (which also serves to introduce the topic)
• a summary of the key point in the literature review (a summary of what is known and how the research aims to contribute to what is known)
• the research aim or objective
• a summary of the research design
• concise definitions of any contested or specialised terms that will be used throughout the proposal (provided the first time the term is used).

This topic will consider how to write about each of these in turn.

Signaling the topic in the first sentence

The first task of the research proposal is to signal the area of the research or 'topic' so the reader knows what subject will be discussed in the proposal. This step is ideally accomplished in the opening sentence or the opening paragraph of the research proposal. It is also indicated in the title of the research proposal. It is important not to provide tangential information in the opening sentence or title because this may mislead the reader about the core subject of the proposal.

A ‘topic’ includes:

• the context or properties of the subject (the particular aspect or properties of the subject that are of interest).

Questions to consider in helping to clarify the topic:

• What is the focus of my research?
• What do I want to understand?
• What domain/s of activity does it pertain to?
• What will I investigate in order to shed light on my focus?

The research justification or the ‘problem’ statement

The goal of the first step of the research proposal is to get your audience's attention; to show them why your research matters, and to make them want to know more about your research. The first step within the research proposal is sometimes referred to as the research justification or the statement of the 'problem'. This step involves providing the reader with critical background or contextual information that introduces the topic area, and indicates why the research is important. Research proposals often open by outlining a central concern, issue, question or conundrum to which the research relates.

The research justification should be provided in an accessible and direct manner in the introductory section of the research proposal. The number of words required to complete this first conceptual step will vary widely depending on the project.

Writing about the research justification, like writing about the literature and your research design, is a creative process involving careful decision making on your part. The research justification should lead up to the topic of your research and frame your research, and, when you write your thesis, exegesis or journal article conclusion, you will again return to the research justification to wrap up the implications of your research. That is to say, your conclusions will refer back to the problem and reflect on what the findings suggest about how we should treat the problem. For this reason, you may find the need to go back and reframe your research justification as your research and writing progresses.

The most common way of establishing the importance of the research is to refer to a real world problem. Research may aim to produce knowledge that will ultimately be used to:

• advance national and organisational goals (health, clean environment, quality education),
• improve policies and regulations,
• manage risk,
• contribute to economic development,
• promote peace and prosperity,
• promote democracy,
• test assumptions (theoretical, popular, policy) about human behaviour, the economy, society,
• understand human behaviour, the economy and social experience,
• understand or critique social processes and values.

Examples of 'research problems' in opening sentences and paragraphs of research writing

Management The concept of meritocracy is one replicated and sustained in much discourse around organisational recruitment, retention and promotion. Women have a firm belief in the concept of merit, believing that hard work, education and talent will in the end be rewarded (McNamee and Miller, 2004). This belief in workplace meritocracy could in part be due to the advertising efforts of employers themselves, who, since the early 1990s, attempt to attract employees through intensive branding programs and aggressive advertising which emphasise equality of opportunity. The statistics, however, are less than convincing, with 2008 data from the Equal Employment for Women in the Workplace agency signalling that women are disproportionately represented in senior management levels compared to men, and that the numbers of women at Chief Executive Officer level in corporate Australia have actually decreased (Equal Opportunity for Women Agency, 2008). Women, it seems, are still unable to shatter the glass ceiling and are consistently overlooked at executive level.

Psychology Tension-type headache is extremely prevalent and is associated with significant personal and social costs.

Education One of the major challenges of higher education health programs is developing the cognitive abilities that will assist undergraduate students' clinical decision making. This is achieved by stimulating enquiry analysis, creating independent judgement and developing cognitive skills that are in line with graduate practice (Hollingworth and McLoughlin 2001; Bedard, 1996).

Visual arts In the East, the traditional idea of the body was not as something separate from the mind. In the West, however, the body is still perceived as separate, as a counterpart of the mind. The body is increasingly at the centre of the changing cultural environment, particularly the increasingly visual culture exemplified by the ubiquity of the image, the emergence of virtual reality, voyeurism and surveillance culture. Within the contemporary visual environment, the body's segregation from the mind has become more intense than ever, conferring upon the body a 'being watched' or 'manufacturable' status, further undermining the sense of the body as an integral part of our being.

Literature review summary

The next step following the research justification in the introduction is the literature review summary statement. This part of the introduction summarises the literature review section of the research proposal, providing a concise statement that signals the field of research and the rationale for the research question or aim.

It can be helpful to think about the literature review element as comprised of four parts. The first is a reference to the field or discipline the research will contribute to. The second is a summary of the main questions, approaches or accepted conclusions in your topic area in the field or discipline at present ('what is known'). This summary of existing research acts as a contrast to highlight the significance of the third part, your statement of a 'gap'. The fourth part rephrases this 'gap' in the form of a research question, aim, objective or hypothesis.

For example

Scholars writing about ... (the problem area) in the field of ... (discipline or sub-discipline, part one) have observed that ... ('what is known', part two). Others describe ... ('what is known', part two). A more recent perspective chronicles changes that, in broad outline, parallel those that have occurred in ... ('what is known', part two). This study differs from these approaches in that it considers ... ('gap', research focus, part three). This research draws on ... to consider ... (research objective, part four).  

More information about writing these four parts of the literature review summary is provided below.

1. The 'field' of literature

The field of research is the academic discipline within which your research is situated, and to which it will contribute. Some fields grow out of a single discipline, others are multidisciplinary. The field or discipline is linked to university courses and research, academic journals, conferences and other academic associations, and some book publishers. It also describes the expertise of thesis supervisors and examiners. 

The discipline defines the kinds of approaches, theories, methods and styles of writing adopted by scholars and researchers working within them.

For a list of academic disciplines have a look at the wikipedia site at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_disciplines

The field or discipline is not the same as the topic of the research. The topic is the subject matter or foci of your research. Disciplines or 'fields' refer to globally recognised areas of research and scholarship.

The field or discipline the research aims to contribute to can be signalled in a few key words within the literature review summary, or possibly earlier withn the research justification.

Sentence stems to signal the field of research 

• Within the field of ... there is now agreement that ... .
• The field of ... is marked by ongoing debate about ... .
• Following analysis of ... the field of ... turned to an exploration of ... .

2. A summary of contrasting areas of research or what is 'known'

The newness or significance of what you are doing is typically established in a contrast or dialogue with other research and scholarship. The 'gap' (or hole in the donut) only becomes apparent by the surrounding literature (or donut). Sometimes a contrast is provided to show that you are working in a different area to what has been done before, or to show that you are building on previous work, or perhaps working on an unresolved issue within a discipline. It might also be that the approaches of other disciplines on the same problem area or focus are introduced to highlight a new angle on the topic.

3. The summary of the 'gap' in the literature

The 'gap' in the field typically refers to the explanation provided to support the research question. Questions or objectives grow out of areas of uncertainty, or gaps, in the field of research. In most cases, you will not know what the gap in knowledge is until you have reviewed the literature and written up a good part of the literature review section of the proposal. It is often not possible therefore to confidently write the 'gap' statement until you have done considerable work on the literature review. Once your literature review section is sufficiently developed, you can summarise the missing piece of knowledge in a brief statement in the introduction.

Sentence stems for summarising a 'gap' in the literature

Indicate a gap in the previous research by raising a question about it, or extending previous knowledge in some way:

• However, there is little information/attention/work/data/research on … .
• However, few studies/investigations/researchers/attempt to … .

Often steps two and three blend together in the same sentence, as in the sentence stems below.

Sentence stems which both introduce research in the field (what is 'known') and summarise a 'gap'

• The research has tended to focus on …(introduce existing field foci), rather than on … ('gap').
• These studies have emphasised that … …(introduce what is known), but it remains unclear whether … ('gap').
• Although considerable research has been devoted to … (introduce field areas), rather less attention has been paid to … ('gap').

The 'significance' of the research

When writing the research proposal, it is useful to think about the research justification and the  ‘gap in the literature’ as two distinct conceptual elements, each of which must be established separately. Stating a real world problem or outlining a conceptual or other conundrum or concern is typically not, in itself, enough to justify the research. Similarly, establishing that there is a gap in the literature is often not enough on its own to persuade the reader that the research is important. In the first case, reviewers may still wonder ‘perhaps the problem or concern has already been addressed in the literature’, or, in the second, ‘so little has been done on this focus, but perhaps the proposed research is not important’? The proposal will ideally establish that the research is important, and that it will provide something new to the field of knowledge.

In effect, the research justification and the literature review work together to establish the benefit, contribution or 'significance' of the research. The 'significance' of the research is established not in a statement to be incorporated into the proposal, but as something the first two sections of the proposal work to establish. Research is significant when it pertains to something important, and when it provides new knowledge or insights within a field of knowledge.

4. The research aim or objective

The research aim is usually expressed as a concise statement at the close of the literature review. It may be referred to as an objective, a question or an aim. These terms are often used interchangeably to refer to the focus of the investigation. The research focus is the question at the heart of the research, designed to produce new knowledge. To avoid confusing the reader about the purpose of the research it is best to express it as either an aim, or an objective, or a question. It is also important to frame the aims of the research in a succinct manner; no more than three dot points say. And the aim/objective/question should be framed in more or less the same way wherever it appears in the proposal. This ensures the research focus is clear.

Language use

Research generally aims to produce knowledge, as opposed to say recommendations, policy or social change. Research may support policy or social change, and eventually produce it in some of its applications, but it does not typically produce it (with the possible exception of action research). For this reason, aims and objectives are framed in terms of knowledge production, using phrases like:

• to increase understanding, insight, clarity;
• to evaluate and critique;
• to test models, theory, or strategies.

These are all knowledge outcomes that can be achieved within the research process.

Reflecting your social philosophy in the research aim

A well written research aim typically carries within it information about the philosophical approach the research will take, even if the researcher is not themselves aware of it, or if the proposal does not discuss philosophy or social theory at any length. If you are interested in social theory, you might consider framing your aim such that it reflects your philosophical or theoretical approach. Since your philosophical approach reflects your beliefs about how 'valid' knowledge can be gained, and therefore the types of questions you ask, it follows that it will be evident within your statement of the research aim. Researchers, variously, hold that knowledge of the world arises through:

• observations of phenomena (measurements of what we can see, hear, taste, touch);
• the interactions between interpreting human subjects and objective phenomena in the world;
• ideology shaped by power, which we may be unconscious of, and which must be interrogated and replaced with knowledge that reflects people's true interests; 
• the structure of language and of the unconscious;
• the play of historical relations between human actions, institutional practices and prevailing discourses;
• metaphoric and other linguistic relations established within language and text.

The philosophical perspective underpinning your research is then reflected in the research aim. For example, depending upon your philosophical perspective, you may aim to find out about:

• observable phenomenon or facts;
• shared cultural meanings of practices, rituals, events that determine how objective phenomena are interpreted and experienced;
• social structures and political ideologies that shape experience and distort authentic or empowered experience;
• the structure of language;
• the historical evolution of networks of discursive and extra-discursive practices;
• emerging or actual phenomenon untainted by existing representation.

You might check your aim statement to ensure it reflects the philosophical perspective you claim to adopt in your proposal. Check that there are not contradictions in your philosophical claims and that you are consistent in your approach. For assistance with this you may find the Social philosophy of research resources helpful.

Sentence stems for aims and objectives

• The purpose of this research project is to … .
• The purpose of this investigation is to … .
• The aim of this research project is to … .
• This study is designed to … .

The next step or key element in the research proposal is the research design. The research design explains how the research aims will be achieved. Within the introduction a summary of the overall research design can make the project more accessible to the reader.

The summary statement of the research design within the introduction might include:

• the method/s that will be used (interviews, surveys, video observation, diary recording);
• if the research will be phased, how many phases, and what methods will be used in each phase;
• brief reference to how the data will be analysed.

The statement of the research design is often the last thing discussed in the research proposal introduction.

NB. It is not necessary to explain that a literature review and a detailed ouline of the methods and methodology will follow because academic readers will assume this.

Title: Aboriginal cultural values and economic sustainability: A case study of agro-forestry in a remote Aboriginal community

Further examples can be found at the end of this topic, and in the drop down for this topic in the left menu. 

In summary, the introduction contains a problem statement, or explanation of why the research is important to the world, a summary of the literature review, and a summary of the research design. The introduction enables the reviewer, as well as yourself and your supervisory team, to assess the logical connections between the research justification, the 'gap' in the literature, research aim and the research design without getting lost in the detail of the project. In this sense, the introduction serves as a kind of map or abstract of the proposed research as well as of the main body of the research proposal.

The following questions may be useful in assessing your research proposal introduction.

• Have I clearly signalled the research topic in the key words and phrases used in the first sentence and title of the research proposal?
• Have I explained why my research matters, the problem or issue that underlies the research in the opening sentences,  paragraphs and page/s?
• Have I used literature, examples or other evidence to substantiate my understanding of the key issues?
• Have I explained the problem in a way that grabs the reader’s attention and concern?
• Have I indicated the field/s within which my research is situated using key words that are recognised by other scholars?
• Have I provided a summary of previous research and outlined a 'gap' in the literature?
• Have I provided a succinct statement of the objectives or aims of my research?
• Have I provided a summary of the research phases and methods?

This resource was developed by Wendy Bastalich.

An official website of the United States government

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.

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.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science—A systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies

Jane Andreasen

1 Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark and Public Health and Epidemiology Group, Department of Health, Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

Birgitte Nørgaard

2 Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark Odense, Denmark

Eva Draborg

Carsten bogh juhl.

3 Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark and Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark

Jennifer Yost

4 M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, United States of America

Klara Brunnhuber

5 Digital Content Services, Elsevier, London, United Kingdom

Karen A. Robinson

6 Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America

7 Department of Evidence-Based Practice, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Redundancy is an unethical, unscientific, and costly challenge in clinical health research. There is a high risk of redundancy when existing evidence is not used to justify the research question when a new study is initiated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to synthesize meta-research studies evaluating if and how authors of clinical health research studies use systematic reviews when initiating a new study.

Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched (final search June 2021). Meta-research studies assessing the use of systematic reviews when justifying new clinical health studies were included. Screening and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was defined as the percentage of original studies within the included meta-research studies using systematic reviews of previous studies to justify a new study. Results were synthesized narratively and quantitatively using a random-effects meta-analysis. The protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/nw7ch/ ).

Twenty-one meta-research studies were included, representing 3,621 original studies or protocols. Nineteen of the 21 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies represented different disciplines and exhibited wide variability both in how the use of previous systematic reviews was assessed, and in how this was reported. The use of systematic reviews to justify new studies varied from 16% to 87%. The mean percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to justify their study was 42% (95% CI: 36% to 48%).

Justification of new studies in clinical health research using systematic reviews is highly variable, and fewer than half of new clinical studies in health science were justified using a systematic review. Research redundancy is a challenge for clinical health researchers, as well as for funders, ethics committees, and journals.

Introduction

Research redundancy in clinical health research is an unethical, unscientific, and costly challenge that can be minimized by using an evidence-based research approach. First introduced in 2009 and since endorsed and promoted by organizations and researchers worldwide [ 1 – 6 ], evidence-based research is an approach whereby researchers systematically and transparently take into account the existing evidence on a topic before embarking on a new study. The researcher thus strives to enter the project unbiased, or at least aware of the risk of knowledge redundancy bias. The key is an evidence synthesis using formal, explicit, and rigorous methods to bring together the findings of pre-existing research to synthesize the totality what is known [ 7 ]. Evidence syntheses provide the basis for an unbiased justification of the proposed research study to ensure that the enrolling of participants, resource allocation, and healthcare systems are supporting only relevant and justified research. Enormous numbers of research studies are conducted, funded, and published globally every year [ 8 ]. Thus, if earlier relevant research is not considered in a systematic and transparent way when justifying research, the foundation for a research question is not properly established, thereby increasing the risk of redundant studies being conducted, funded, and published resulting in a waste of resources, such as time and funding [ 1 , 4 ]. Most importantly, when redundant research is initiated, participants unethically and unnecessarily receive placebos or receive suboptimal treatment.

Previous meta-research, defined as the study of research itself including the methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives of the research [ 9 ] have shown that there is considerable variation and bias in the use of evidence syntheses to justify research studies [ 10 – 12 ]. To the best of our knowledge, a systematic review of previous meta-research studies assessing the use of systematic reviews to justify studies in clinical health research has not previously been conducted. Evaluating how evidence-based research is implemented in research practices across disciplines and specialties when justifying new studies will provide an indication of the integration of evidence-based research in research practices [ 9 ]. The present systematic review aimed to identify and synthesize results from meta-research studies, regardless of study type, evaluating if and how authors of clinical health research studies use systematic reviews to justify a new study.

Prior to commencing the review, we registered the protocol in the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/nw7ch/ ). The protocol remained unchanged, but in this paper we have made adjustments to the risk-of-bias assessment, reducing the tool to 10 items and removing the assessment of reporting quality. The review is presented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [ 13 ].

Eligibility criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were original meta-research studies, regardless of study type, that evaluated if and how authors of clinical health research studies used systematic reviews to justify new clinical health studies. No limitations on language, publication status, or publication year were applied. Only meta-research studies of studies on human subjects in clinical health sciences were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was defined as the percentage of original studies within the included meta-research studies using systematic reviews of previous studies to justify a new study. The secondary outcome was how the systematic reviews of previous research were used (e.g., within the text to justify the study) by the original studies.

Information sources and search strategy

This study is one of six ongoing evidence syntheses (four systematic reviews and two scoping reviews) planned to assess the global state of evidence-based research in clinical health research. These are; a scoping review mapping the area broadly to describe current practice and identify knowledge gaps, a systematic review on the use of prior research in reports of randomized controlled trials specifically, three systematic reviews assessing the use of systematic reviews when justifying, designing [ 14 ] or putting results of a new study in context, and finally a scoping review uncovering the breadth and characteristics of the available, empirical evidence on the topic of citation bias. Further, the research group is working with colleagues on a Handbook for Evidence-based Research in health sciences. Due to the common aim across the six evidence syntheses, a broad overall search strategy was designed to identify meta-research studies that assessed whether researchers used earlier similar studies and/or systematic reviews of earlier similar studies to inform the justification and/or design of a new study, whether researchers used systematic reviews to inform the interpretation of new results, and meta-research studies that assessed if there were published redundant studies within a specific area or not.

The first search was performed in June 2015. Databases included MEDLINE via both PubMed and Ovid, EMBASE via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), and the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR, Methods Studies) from inception (Appendix 1 in S1 File ). In addition, reference lists of included studies were screened for relevant articles, as well as the authors’ relevant publications and abstracts from the Cochrane Methodology Reviews.

Based upon the experiences from the results of the baseline search in June 2015, an updated and revised search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid from January 2015 to June 2021 (Appendix 1 in S1 File ). Once again, the reference lists of new included studies were screened for relevant references, as were abstracts from January 2015 to June 2021 in the Cochrane Methodology Reviews. Experts in the field were contacted to identify any additional published and/or grey literature. No restrictions were made on publication year and language. See Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 in S1 File for the full search strategy.

Screening and study selection

Following deduplication, the search results were uploaded to Rayyan ( https://rayyan.qcri.org/welcome ). The search results from the 1st search (June 2015) were independently screened by a pair of reviewers. Twenty screeners were paired, with each pair including an author very experienced in systematic reviews and a less experienced author. To increase consistency among reviewers, both reviewers initially screened the same 50 publications and discussed the results before beginning screening for this review. Disagreements on study selection were resolved by consensus and discussion with a third reviewer, if needed. The full-text screening was also performed by two reviewers independently. Disagreements on study selection were resolved by consensus and discussion. There were also two independent reviewers who screened following the last search, using the same procedure, as for the first search, for full-text screening and disagreements. The screening procedures resulted in a full list of studies potentially relevant for one or more of the six above-mentioned evidence syntheses.

A second title and abstract screening and full-text screening of the full list was then performed independently by two reviewers using screening criteria specific to this systematic review. Reasons for excluding trials were recorded, and disagreements between the reviewers were resolved through discussion. If consensus was not reached, a third reviewer was involved.

Data extraction

We developed and pilot tested a data extraction form to extract data regarding study characteristics and outcomes of interest. Two reviewers independently extracted data, with other reviewers available to resolve disagreements. The following study characteristics were extracted from each of the included studies: bibliographic information, study aim, study design, setting, country, inclusion period, area of interest, results, and conclusion. Further, data for this study’s primary and secondary outcomes were extracted; these included the percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to justify their study and how the systematic reviews of previous research were used (e.g., within the text to justify the study) by the original studies.

Risk-of-bias assessment

No standard tool was identified to assess the risk of bias in empirical meta-research studies. The Editorial Group of the Evidence-Based Research Network prepared a risk-of-bias tool for the planned five systematic reviews with list of items important for evaluating the risk of bias in meta-research studies. For each item, one could classify the study under examination as exhibiting a “low risk of bias”, “unclear risk of bias” or “high risk of bias”. We independently tested the list of items upon a sample of included studies. Following a discussion of the different answers, we adjusted the number and content of the list of items to ten and defined the criteria to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies ( Table 1 ). Each of the included meta-research studies was appraised independently by two reviewers using the customized checklist to determine the risk of bias. Disagreements regarding the risk of bias were solved through discussion. No study was excluded on the grounds of low quality.

Data synthesis and interpretation

In addition, to narratively summarizing the characteristics of the included meta-research studies and their risk-of-bias assessments, the percentage of original studies using systematic review of previous similar studies to justify a new study (primary outcome) was calculated as the number of studies using at least one systematic review, divided by the total number of original studies within each of the included meta-research studies. A meta-analysis using the random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird) was used to estimate the overall estimate and perform the forest plot as this model is the default when using the metaprop command. Heterogeneity was evaluated estimating the I 2 statistics (the percentage of variance attributable to heterogeneity i.e., inconsistency) and the between study variance tau 2 . When investigating reasons for heterogeneity, a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) model was used and covariates with the ability to reduce tau 2 was deemed relevant. [ 15 ].

All analyses were conducted in Stata, version 17.0 (StataCorp. 2019. Stata Statistical Software : Release 17 . College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC).

Study selection

In total, 30,592 publications were identified through the searches. Of these, 69 publications were determined eligible for one of the six evidence syntheses. A total of 21 meta-research studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this systematic review [ 10 , 11 , 16 – 34 ]; see Fig 1 .

Study characteristics

The 21 included meta-research studies were published from 2007 to 2021, representing 3,621 original studies or protocols and one survey with 106 participants; only three of these studies were published before 2013 [ 10 , 18 , 26 ]. The sample of the original study within each of the included meta-research studies varied. One meta-research study surveyed congress delegates [ 29 ], one study examined first-submission protocols for randomized controlled trials submitted to four hospital ethics committees [ 17 ], and 14 studies examined randomized or quasi-randomized primary studies published during a specific time period in a range of journals [ 10 , 11 , 18 , 21 – 28 , 31 , 32 , 34 ] or in specific databases [ 16 , 19 , 20 , 30 ]. Finally, one study examined the use of previously published systematic reviews when publishing a new systematic review [ 33 ]. Further, the number of original studies within each included meta-research study varied considerably, ranging from 18 [ 10 ] to 637 original studies [ 27 ]. The characteristics of the included meta-research studies are presented in Table 2 .

SR: systematic review; MA: meta–analysis; RCT: randomized controlled trial.

Risk of bias assessment

Overall, most studies were determined to exhibit a low risk of bias in the majority of items, and all of the included meta-research studies reported an unambiguous aim and a match between aim and methods. However, only a few studies provided argumentation for their choice of data source [ 17 , 20 , 24 , 30 ], and only two of the 21 studies referred to an available a-priori protocol [ 16 , 21 ]. Finally, seven studies provided poor or no discussion of the limitations of their study [ 10 , 19 , 22 , 26 – 28 , 34 ]. The risk-of-bias assessments are shown in Table 3 .

Synthesis of results

Of the included 21 studies, a total of 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies included two cohorts each, and both cohorts in each of these studies were included in our meta-analysis [ 21 , 30 ]. The survey by Clayton and colleagues, with a response rate of 17%, was not included in the meta-analysis as the survey did not provide data to identify the use of systematic reviews to justify specific studies. However, their results showed that 42 of 84 respondents (50%) reported using a systematic review for justification [ 29 ]. The study by Chow, which was also not included in the meta-analysis, showed that justification varied largely within and between specialties. However, only relative numbers were provided, and, therefore, no overall percentage could be extracted [ 11 ]. The study by Seehra et al. counted the SR citations in RCTs and not the number of RCTs citing SRs and is therefore not included in the meta-analysis either [ 23 ].

The percentage of original studies that justified a new study with a systematic review within each meta-research study ranged from 16% to 87%. The pooled percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to justify their research question was 42% (95% CI: 36% to 48%) as shown in Fig 2 . Where the confidence interval showed the precision of the pooled estimate in a meta-analysis, the prediction interval showed the distribution of the individual studies. The heterogeneity in the meta-analysis assessed by I 2 was 94%. The clinical interpretation of this large heterogeneity is seen in a the very broad prediction interval ranging from 16 to 71%, meaning that based on these studies there is 95% chance that the results of the next study will show a prevalence between 16 to 71%.

Forest plot prevalence and 95% confidence intervals for the percentage of studies using an SR to justify the study.

Further, we conducted an explorative subgroup analysis of the study of Helfer et al. and the study of Joseph et al. as these two studies were on meta-analyses and protocols and therefore differ from the other included studies. This analysis did only marginally change the pooled percentage to 39% (95% CI; 33% to 46%) and the between-study variance (tau 2 ) was reduced with 23%.

The 21 included studies varied greatly in their approach and in their description of how systematic reviews were used, i.e., if the original studies referred and whether the used systematic reviews in the original studies were relevant and/or of high-quality. Nine studies assessed, to varying degrees, whether the used systematic reviews were relevant for the justification of the research [ 16 – 20 , 25 , 30 , 32 , 34 ]. Overall, the information reported by the meta-research studies was not sufficient to report the percentage of primary studies referring to relevant systematic reviews. No details were provided regarding the methodological quality of the systematic reviews used to justify the research question or if they were recently published reviews, except for Hoderlein et al., who reported that the mean number of years from publication of the cited systematic review and the trial report was four years [ 30 ].

We identified 21 meta-research studies, spanning 15 publication years and 12 medical disciplines. The findings showed substantial variability in the use of systematic reviews when justifying new clinical studies, with the incidence of use ranging from 16% to 87%. However, fewer than half of the 19 meta-analysis-eligible studies used a systematic review to justify their new study. There was wide variability, and a general lack of information, about how systematic reviews were used within many of the original studies. Our systematic review found that the proportion of original studies justifying their new research using evidence syntheses is sub-optimal and, thus, the potential for research redundancy continues to be a challenge. This study corroborates the serious possible consequences regarding research redundancy previously problematized by Chalmers et al. and Glasziou et al. [ 35 , 36 ].

Systematic reviews are considered crucial when justifying a new study, as is emphasized in reporting guidelines such as the CONSORT statement [ 37 ]. However, there are challenges involved in implementing an evidence-based research approach. The authors of the included meta-research study reporting the highest use of systematic reviews to justify a new systematic review study point out that even though the authors of the original studies refer to some of the published systematic reviews, they neglect others on the same topic, which may be problematic and result in a biased approach [ 33 ]. Other issues that have been identified are the risk of research waste when a systematic review may not be methodologically sound [ 12 , 38 ] and that there is also redundancy in the conduct of systematic reviews, with many overlapping systematic reviews existing on the same topic [ 39 – 41 ]. In the original studies within the meta-research studies, the use of systematic reviews was not consistent and, further, it was not explicated whether the systematic reviews used were the most recent and/or of high methodological quality. These issues speak to the need for refinement in the area of systematic review development, such as mandatory registration in prospective registries. Only two out of the included 21 studies in this study referred to an available a-priori protocol [ 16 , 21 ]. General recommendations in the use of systematic reviews as justification for a new study are difficult as these will be topic specific, however researchers should be aware to use the most robust and methodologically sound of recently published reviews, preferably with á priori published protocols.

Efforts must continue in promoting the use of evidence-based research approaches among clinical health researchers and other important stakeholders, such as funders. Collaborations such as the Ensuring Value in Research Funders Forum, and changes in funding review criteria mandating reference to previously published systematic reviews when justifying the research question within funding proposals, are examples of how stakeholders can promote research that is evidence-based [ 8 , 41 ].

Strengths and limitations

We conducted a comprehensive and systematic search. The lack of standard terminology for meta-research studies resulted in search strategies that retrieved thousands of citations. We also relied on snowballing efforts to identify relevant studies, such as by contacting experts and scanning the reference lists of relevant studies.

There is also a lack of tools to assess risk of bias for meta-research studies, so a specific risk-of bias tool for the five conducted reviews was created. The tool was discussed and revised continuously throughout the research process; however, we acknowledge that the checklist is not yet optimal and a validated risk-of-bias tool for meta-research studies is needed.

Many of the included meta-research studies did not provide details as to whether the systematic reviews used to justify the included studies were relevant, high-quality and/or recently published. This may raise questions as to the validity of our findings, as the majority of the meta-research studies only provide an indication of the citation of systematic reviews to justify new studies, not whether the systematic review cited was relevant, recent and of high-quality, or even how the systematic review was used. We did not assess this further either. Nonetheless, even if we assumed that these elements were provided for every original study included in the included meta-research studies (i.e. taking a conservative approach), fewer than half used systematic reviews to justify their research questions. The conservative approach used in this study therefore does not underestimate, and perhaps rather overestimates, the actual use of relevant systematic reviews to justify studies in clinical health science across disciplines.

Different study designs were included in the meta-analysis, which may have contributed to the high degree of heterogeneity observed. Therefore, the presented results should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity. Not only were there differences in the methods of the included meta-research studies, but there was also heterogeneity in the medical specialties evaluated [ 42 , 43 ].

In conclusion, justification of research questions in clinical health research with systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent; fewer than half of the primary studies within the included meta-research studies in this systematic review were found to have used a systematic review to justify their research question. This indicates that the risk of redundant research is still high when new studies across disciplines and professions in clinical health are initiated, thereby indicating that evidence-based research has not yet been successfully implemented in the clinical health sciences. Efforts to raise awareness and to ensure an evidence-based research approach continue to be necessary, and such efforts should involve clinical health researchers themselves as well as important stakeholders such as funders.

Supporting information

S1 checklist, s1 protocol, acknowledgments.

This work has been prepared as part of the Evidence-Based Research Network ( ebrnetwork.org ). The Evidence-Based Research Network is an international network that promotes the use of systematic reviews when justifying, designing, and interpreting research. The authors thank the Section for Evidence-Based Practice, Department for Health and Function, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences for their generous support of the EBRNetwork. Further, thanks to COST Association for supporting the COST Action “EVBRES” (CA 17117, evbres.eu) and thereby the preparation of this study. Thanks to Gunhild Austrheim, Head of Unit, Library at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway, for helping with the second search. Thanks to those helping with the screening: Durita Gunnarsson, Gorm Høj Jensen, Line Sjodsholm, Signe Versterre, Linda Baumbach, Karina Johansen, Rune Martens Andersen, and Thomas Aagaard.

We gratefully acknowledge the contribution from the EVBRES (COST ACTION CA 17117) Core Group, including Anne Gjerland (AG) and her specific contribution to the search and screening process.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

• PLoS One. 2022; 17(10): e0276955.

Decision Letter 0

Transfer alert.

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PONE-D-22-02383Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science - a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Andreasen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 17 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at  gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrzej Grzybowski

Academic Editor

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356 (22)00016-6/fulltext

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions .

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories .

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting meta-research paper, which is part of a series of papers.

Basing new research on systematic reviews is clearly important and has been the subject of a number of reviews. This paper essentially reviews the meta-research in this area, to give a global assessment of the issue taking into account all of the evidence

The content of the rest of the series was not made clear, but a decision has been made to publish them singly. I think the short description of the rest of the programme could be expanded a little to put the work in context and help the reader understand how the work fits together. How do the different studies relate, and are other papers needed to put the current work in context?

The introduction defines meta-research in broad terms, but it is not until the results that the reader is given a sense of the actual designs included and of relevance to the research question. Were these defined a priori, or were these study designs that fit the broad definition which happened to be found in the search? Are there meta-research designs of relevance to the research question which were not found in the searches?

Personally, I would bring a description of the range of study design forward into the introduction, as getting a sense of the sorts of approaches to meta-research of relevance will help non-specialists in this area. I was not clear of the likely designs until quite late in the paper

The review methods seemed very rigorous, and I had no major comments on those beyond one clarification. When they said, ‘No study was excluded on the grounds of low quality’, did they mean that no studies were considered so bad, or that as a rule no studies were every going to be excluded on that basis?

As noted above, there were a number of study designs included, and all were assessed using the generic risk of bias tool. Presumably some designs are just stronger than others? The survey must be considered a weaker design that the others. Again, this links to the earlier comment about the need for more detail on design of the meta research, which I felt was lost in the use of a generic risk of bias assessment.

I did not understand the statement ‘The clinical interpretation of the large heterogeneity is seen in a broad prediction interval with a range from 16 to 71%’ and that needs clarification

The discussion is balanced, but there are a few significant issues that are given a fairly cursory consideration and would benefit from greater detail

I was interested in the issue of the ‘quality’ of the reviews used. I accept that the data here was not enough for analysis, but felt that the authors (as experts in this area) could be pushed to provide a stronger statement about what criteria should be used by further studies (for example, how do we judge if a review used as the basis for research is a strong basis. How long before a quoted review is too ‘old’?)

They acknowledge that ‘the checklist is not yet optimal and a validated risk-of-bias tool for meta-research studies is needed’. Given their experience and expertise, what would that look like, and how would it be best developed and tested? How would it take into account the role of different designs noted above, given variation in the approaches to meta-research they found?

I appreciate the simple and elegant assessment of the main findings, but they present only vague statement on the role of design and medical specialities. Is it not possible for them to say more on this, or explore the data more fully? What about change over time, which seems very relevant. I did feel the authors could be pushed a little more here, given that they have a programme of work and must be in a position to present more substantive statements. I think that would add to the contribution of the paper

Reviewer #2: The article is on interesting topic but several points needs emphasis:

the inclusion criteria should be defined more clearly in the text

Systematiic review and meta analysis are relatively new and first papers go to late seventies in previous century.

This should be considered when reviewing papers.

The risk of redundancy could not be well defined from the meta search papers rather it should be from the original articles . This would not be possible unless a focused issue is chosen as an example.

The different disciplines have different research out puts as the basis for systematic reviews which makes the comparison difficult .

I realize some studies are based on the disclosure of the authors whether they have used the previous systematic reviews or not . This should be confirmed by evidence .

These should be mentioned as the limitations of this work .

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1:  Yes:  Peter Bower

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at  gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

25 Apr 2022

Response letter to the editor and reviewers,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise the manuscript. Thank you to the reviewers for the positive and constructive comments concerning the manuscript. We have now revised the manuscript in accordance with these comments by addressing all issues from the editor and from the reviewers below.

Answer: we have addressed the requirements, see our answers below.

Answer: We believe we meet the style requirements, including correct file naming.

Answer: We agree that there are overlap in parts of the methods section with the mentioned publication. The paper was published in the period of this manuscript being in review, we have therefore now referred to the publication in this manuscript. This manuscript and the publication are both part of a series of papers assessing the global status of evidence-based research in clinical health research and therefore the overlap in the methods section was expected. We have thoroughly scrutinized the full manuscript and found no full sentences that are overlapping, except for the methods section. To be sure of this, we further have conducted a legal comparison in MS Words with the mentioned publication and again found no full sentences except in the methods section. This is to our sincere knowledge only in the methods section, please let us know if we are mistaken.

Answer: We have uploaded the data set necessary to replicate our study findings in a supplementary file and described the changes to the “Data Availability statement” in the cover letter.

Reviewer comments Reviewer #1:

1. Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting meta-research paper, which is part of a series of papers.

Response: Thank you for this response and that is exactly the purpose.

2. The content of the rest of the series was not made clear, but a decision has been made to publish them singly. I think the short description of the rest of the program could be expanded a little to put the work in context and help the reader understand how the work fits together. How do the different studies relate, and are other papers needed to put the current work in context?

Response: We have expanded the text and especially regarding how the work fits together and shows our purpose of taking a global assessment of the on evidence-based research in the following six papers:

1. Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research – a scoping review

2. A Systematic Review on the Use of Prior Research in Reports of Randomized Clinical Trials

3. Justification

6. The problem of citation bias – a scoping review

We do not have other papers in pipeline at the moment, but we are currently working on a Handbook for Evidence-Based Research to provide tools and models to make it easier for researchers to work evidence- based in their research.

Changes to text: This study is one of six ongoing meta-syntheses (four systematic reviews and two scoping reviews) planned to assess the global state of evidence-based research in clinical health research. These are; a scoping review mapping the area broadly to describe current practice and identify knowledge gaps, a systematic review on the use of prior research in reports of randomized controlled trials specifically, three systematic reviews assessing the use of systematic reviews when justifying, designing [14] or putting results of a new study in context, and finally a scoping review uncovering the breadth and characteristics of the available, empirical evidence on the topic of citation bias . Further, the research group is working with colleagues on a Handbook for Evidence-based Research in health sciences.

3. The introduction defines meta-research in broad terms, but it is not until the results that the reader is given a sense of the actual designs included and of relevance to the research question. Were these defined a priori, or were these study designs that fit the broad definition which happened to be found in the search? Are there meta-research designs of relevance to the research question which were not found in the searches?

Response: We get your point. A very broad and inclusive definition was defined a priori in the published protocol: “Types of study to be included: We will include meta-research studies (or studies performing research on research)” in order not to miss out on relevant studies, because the research field was quite new and further, we did not identify other meta-research studies to guide our process. Due to our very broad and sensitive search strategy we believe we identified all relevant meta-research studies.

Only data regarding justification from original papers were included in our meta-analysis as the study design of a survey of delegates use of systematic reviews to justify their studies, was assessed as seriously subjected to a social desirability bias.

Changes to text:

Introduction: The present systematic review aimed to identify and synthesize results from meta-research studies, regardless study type, evaluating if and how authors of clinical health research studies use systematic reviews to justify a new study.

Methods section, eligibility criteria: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were original meta-research studies, regardless study type, that evaluated if and how authors of clinical health studies used systematic reviews to justify new clinical health studies.

4. Personally, I would bring a description of the range of study design forward into the introduction, as getting a sense of the sorts of approaches to meta-research of relevance will help non-specialists in this area. I was not clear of the likely designs until quite late in the paper

Response: We agree and have made it clear that all meta-research studies regardless design was included.

Changes to text: see above.

5. The review methods seemed very rigorous, and I had no major comments on those beyond one clarification. When they said, ‘No study was excluded on the grounds of low quality’, did they mean that no studies were considered so bad, or that as a rule no studies were every going to be excluded on that basis?

Response: The latter, as a rule no studies were excluded, as our intention was not to guide clinical practice. This is stated in the manuscript as the last sentence in the Risk-of-Bias Assessment section. No changes are therefore made.

6. As noted above, there were a number of study designs included, and all were assessed using the generic risk of bias tool. Presumably some designs are just stronger than others? The survey must be considered a weaker design that the others. Again, this links to the earlier comment about the need for more detail on design of the meta research, which I felt was lost in the use of a generic risk of bias assessment.

Response: We agree on this point, but we did take a very open approach to monitor the field of justification. And we did not range the study designs in a hierarchical order in our “premature” Risk of Bias tool, as we aimed to assess the area and not to provide any clinical recommendations. However, the author group and colleagues are currently working on an improved checklist tool.

No further changes to text.

7. I did not understand the statement ‘The clinical interpretation of the large heterogeneity is seen in a broad prediction interval with a range from 16 to 71%’ and that needs clarification

Response: We agree that an explanation is appropriate.

Changes to text: The clinical interpretation of the large heterogeneity is seen in a broad prediction interval with a range from 16 to 71%, meaning that there is 95% confidence that the results of the next study will be between a prevalence of 16 to 71%.

8. The discussion is balanced, but there are a few significant issues that are given a fairly cursory consideration and would benefit from greater detail

Response: We have addressed the issues mentioned below and provided more detail

9. I was interested in the issue of the ‘quality’ of the reviews used. I accept that the data here was not enough for analysis, but felt that the authors (as experts in this area) could be pushed to provide a stronger statement about what criteria should be used by further studies (for example, how do we judge if a review used as the basis for research is a strong basis. How long before a quoted review is too ‘old’?)

Response: Very interesting topic to address further, which we have continuously discussed in the author group, but this is both complex and context dependent in specific topics. Therefore, we have chosen not to elaborate further on the topic in the manuscript, to give an appropriate consideration more space is needed.

Instead, we have mentioned these considerations as important to address further in future publications as to guide researchers when using systematic reviews to justify. As mentioned earlier, the research group is working with colleagues on a Handbook for Evidence-based Research in health sciences, which will elaborate on the topics in detail.

Changes to text in Discussion section:

General recommendations in the use of systematic reviews as justification for a new study are difficult as these will be topic specific, however researchers should be aware to use the most robust and methodologically sound of recently published reviews, preferably with á priori published protocols.

10. They acknowledge that ‘the checklist is not yet optimal and a validated risk-of-bias tool for meta-research studies is needed’. Given their experience and expertise, what would that look like, and how would it be best developed and tested? How would it take into account the role of different designs noted above, given variation in the approaches to meta-research they found?

Response: We fully agree with you on this topic and the author group and colleagues are currently working on an improved checklist tool. Your suggestion about ranging the study designs is very relevant and will be considered in the author group in this thorough work that we expect to publish in the near future. We find the work requires space and thorough analysis and we therefore have decided this should be published in an independent paper.

11. I appreciate the simple and elegant assessment of the main findings, but they present only vague statement on the role of design and medical specialities. Is it not possible for them to say more on this, or explore the data more fully? What about change over time, which seems very relevant. I did feel the authors could be pushed a little more here, given that they have a programme of work and must be in a position to present more substantive statements. I think that would add to the contribution of the paper

Response: The role of design is only considered in relation to that the studies has done meta - research on the topic “justification”. We do not find it was appropriate to explicate more about the roles of medical specialties as the approach in the different studies were very diverse ranging from participants in the survey, to specialties or to specific journals (mostly high ranking) or more broad aimed journals or databases.

Change over time is an important and relevant question. We did not address the issue for two reasons. Firstly, most of the papers are published after 2012 and it would be a short timeline to assess. But most importantly, as most of the included studies in our meta-research study were cross-sectional, we would not be able to validly assess change over time with the data at hand.

Reviewer comments Reviewer #2 :

1. The article is on interesting topic but several points needs emphasis

Response: Thank you. We have answered each point above.

2. The inclusion criteria should be defined more clearly in the text

Response: Methods section: we have clarified the inclusion criteria in the methods section.

3. Systematic review and meta analysis are relatively new and first papers go to late seventies in previous century. This should be considered when reviewing papers.

Response: Yes, it is a fairly new discipline, however it has been recommended to be evidence-based by the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses for many years. Our aim was therefore to look at meta-research in a broad sense by using previously published studies investigating how large a percentage are using systematic reviews as justification when initiating new health science.

4. The risk of redundancy could not be well defined from the meta search papers rather it should be from the original articles . This would not be possible unless a focused issue is chosen as an example.

Response: Risk of redundancy can, in our perspective, be thoroughly assessed by the use of systematic reviews with meta-analyses included, and especially cumulative meta-analyses can pinpoint this in a specific research topic. Therefore, we agree that we cannot point it to a specific field but have taken this meta-research perspective to provide a more global status on the topic.

We hope you can follow our reasoning.

5. The different disciplines have different research out puts as the basis for systematic reviews which makes the comparison difficult

Response: In this paper, we did not look for the output, but the “input” so to speak, as we assess whether the authors have used justification by using systematic reviews, when initiating a new study in health science. We agree, it is important to define the aim and approach and the outcomes more specifically, if you look into a specific topic.

No changes to text.

6. I realize some studies are based on the disclosure of the authors whether they have used the previous systematic reviews or not. This should be confirmed by evidence.

These should be mentioned as the limitations of this work.

Response: We agree on this point and have clarified in the limitations that we have taken “the face value” reported by the authors in the included studies.

Changes to text: Discussion, Strengths and Limitations section:

This may raise questions as to the validity of our findings, as the majority of the meta-research studies only provide an indication of the citation of systematic reviews to justify new studies, not whether the systematic review was relevant, recent or of high-quality, or even how the systematic review was used. We did not assess this further either.

Submitted filename: Response letter_25042022.docx

Decision Letter 1

19 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-02383R1Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science - a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studiesPLOS ONE

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 03 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at  gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: I am happy with the responses and thank the authors for their detailed replies, but just had 2 minor issues

This probably reflects my ignorance so apologies to the authors, but I still do not understand the relationship between the 95% CI around the pooled percentage, and the 'broad prediction interval' which follows it. Could they add a line to explain?

There are some typos remaining. The phrase 'regardless study type' should read 'regardless of study type'. There are some rogue apostrophes in the tables (SR's, RCT's) which need to be edited

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Reviewer #1: No

Author response to Decision Letter 1

21 Sep 2022

Response letter

Thank you for the opportunity to revise the manuscript. Thank you to the reviewer for the relevant comments concerning the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with these comments by addressing all issues from the editor and from the reviewers below.

Reviewer #1: I am happy with the responses and thank the authors for their detailed replies, but just had 2 minor issues

Response: Thank you very much.

Response: We have revised and explained more in detail and hope the revised text explains this more clearly.

Where the confidence interval showed the precision of the pooled estimate in a meta-analysis, the prediction interval showed the distribution of the individual studies. The heterogeneity in the meta-analysis assessed by I2 was 94%. The clinical interpretation of this large heterogeneity is seen in a the very broad prediction interval ranging from 16 to 71%, meaning that based on these studies there is 95% chance that the results of the next study will show a prevalence between 16 to 71%.

There are some typos remaining. The phrase 'regardless study type' should read 'regardless of study type'.

Response: Thank you, we have revised as suggested.

There are some rogue apostrophes in the tables (SR's, RCT's) which need to be edited

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have edited this now.

On behalf of the author group,

Submitted filename: Response letter 20092022.docx

Decision Letter 2

18 Oct 2022

Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science - a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies

PONE-D-22-02383R2

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Acceptance letter

21 Oct 2022

Dear Dr. Andreasen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrzej Grzybowski

7 Examples of Justification (of a project or research)

The justification to the part of a research project that sets out the reasons that motivated the research. The justification is the section that explains the importance and the reasons that led the researcher to carry out the work.

The justification explains to the reader why and why the chosen topic was investigated. In general, the reasons that the researcher can give in a justification may be that his work allows to build or refute theories; bring a new approach or perspective on the subject; contribute to the solution of a specific problem (social, economic, environmental, etc.) that affects certain people; generate meaningful and reusable empirical data; clarify the causes and consequences of a specific phenomenon of interest; among other.

Among the criteria used to write a justification, the usefulness of the research for other academics or for other social sectors (public officials, companies, sectors of civil society), the significance in time that it may have, the contribution of new research tools or techniques, updating of existing knowledge, among others. Also, the language should be formal and descriptive.

Examples of justification

• This research will focus on studying the reproduction habits of salmon in the Mediterranean region of Europe, since due to recent ecological changes in the water and temperatures of the region produced by human economic activity , the behavior of these animals has been modified. Thus, the present work would allow to show the changes that the species has developed to adapt to the new circumstances of its ecosystem, and to deepen the theoretical knowledge about accelerated adaptation processes, in addition to offering a comprehensive look at the environmental damage caused by growth. unsustainable economic, helping to raise awareness of the local population.
• We therefore propose to investigate the evolution of the theoretical conceptions of class struggle and economic structure throughout the work of Antonio Gramsci, since we consider that previous analyzes have overlooked the fundamentally dynamic and unstable conception of human society that is present. in the works of Gramsci, and that is of vital importance to fully understand the author’s thought.
• The reasons that led us to investigate the effects of regular use of cell phones on the health of middle-class young people under 18 years of age are centered on the fact that this vulnerable sector of the population is exposed to a greater extent than the rest of society to risks that the continuous use of cell phone devices may imply, due to their cultural and social habits. We intend then to help alert about these dangers, as well as to generate knowledge that helps in the treatment of the effects produced by the abuse in the use of this technology.
• We believe that by means of a detailed analysis of the evolution of financial transactions carried out in the main stock exchanges of the world during the period 2005-2010, as well as the inquiry about how financial and banking agents perceived the situation of the financial system, it will allow us to clarify the economic mechanisms that enable the development of an economic crisis of global dimensions such as the one that the world experienced since 2009, and thus improve the design of regulatory and counter-cyclical public policies that favor the stability of the local and international financial system.
• Our study about the applications and programs developed through the three analyzed programming languages ​​(Java, C ++ and Haskell), can allow us to clearly distinguish the potential that each of these languages ​​(and similar languages) present for solving specific problems. , in a specific area of ​​activity. This would allow not only to increase efficiency in relation to long-term development projects, but to plan coding strategies with better results in projects that are already working, and to improve teaching plans for teaching programming and computer science.
• This in-depth study on the expansion of the Chinese empire under the Xia dynasty, will allow to clarify the socioeconomic, military and political processes that allowed the consolidation of one of the oldest states in history, and also understand the expansion of metallurgical and administrative technologies along the coastal region of the Pacific Ocean. The deep understanding of these phenomena will allow us to clarify this little-known period in Chinese history, which was of vital importance for the social transformations that the peoples of the region went through during the period.
• Research on the efficacy of captropil in the treatment of cardiovascular conditions (in particular hypertension and heart failure) will allow us to determine if angiotensin is of vital importance in the processes of blocking the protein peptidase, or if by the On the contrary, these effects can be attributed to other components present in the formula of drugs frequently prescribed to patients after medical consultation.

Related posts:

• Research Project: Information and examples
• 15 Examples of Empirical Knowledge
• 10 Paragraphs about Social Networks
• 15 Examples of Quotes
• What are the Elements of Knowledge?

Privacy Overview

What is justification in research/15 examples of justification

Research in science is fundamental projects to obtain advances and new knowledge that allow us to better understand the world, managing and dealing with all kinds of phenomena. But investigations are not a spontaneous phenomenon: they require planning, design and, especially, a reason that justifies their being carried out. This rationale must be particularly compelling in cases where financial and other means are required for the investigation to begin. What is justification in research ?

For this reason, before starting a scientific project, it is necessary to develop a justification for that research . Next we are going to see  different examples of justification for an investigation  and what questions they must answer.

What is justification in an investigation/research?

The justification of an investigation is the  part of a scientific project in which the reasons and arguments that have led the person behind proposing it and wanting to carry it out are exposed  . This justification must be added when writing the work in writing, usually appearing at the beginning of it, both in the abstract and in the theoretical introduction. Its objective is to try to answer what, how, why and for what purpose the investigation has been carried out.

Therefore, the part of the justification is something fundamental that all scientific work must explain, since it provides the reasons that have led one or more people to decide to start the research that they present in the article or book. These are the reasons that are considered to make research useful and beneficial to the scientific community . It is very important to indicate in it what benefits for common knowledge can carry out or have carried out such research, as well as to advance in the understanding of a certain knowledge as its practical applications.

As its name indicates, the justification of an investigation is the part that justifies the work, that is, within it a series of arguments must be highlighted that must be valid and powerful enough to prove the need to carry out the investigation. When it comes to demonstrating that the work will be useful, there are many options for arguing and defending such research . What is justification in research ?

Among the most common we have the fact that  this research will allow science to advance in a specific field of knowledge  , something that serves as a precedent for more complex and larger investigations to be developed in the future. It can also be indicated that the research will serve so that what has been discovered can be applied as a solution to an important problem for society.

Another interesting argument used in the justification of an investigation is that, based on what has been discovered in it, a new method can be developed of something that was already known to be solved but that will be more economical, that is, that the investigation will allow develop a new system to face a certain problem but lowering costs, improving efficiency or reducing the consumption of resources, improving the quality of life of people who could not afford to pay the classical method or promoting social and educational changes without having as obstacle to the liquidity of funds.

Several examples of justification for an investigation

Now that we know what the justifications of an investigation are and what questions they must answer, using solid and valid arguments,  we move on to see several examples of justification of an investigation from different areas  . Most come from real investigations, only that here a summary of the part of the introduction has been exposed in which the antecedents of the field to be investigated are exposed a little and what are the reasons, objectives and arguments that have led the research team to deepen on that theme .

1. The effects of television on the behavior of young people

“ Television has become the most influential medium in the development of behavior and thought patterns in children and adolescents around the world, some of them quite disruptive (violence, aggressiveness, lack of respect towards teachers and other reference adults. ..). The relationship between television and youth behavior is suspected, but no clear causal link had been identified.

This article aims to  review the evidence in favor of the hypothesis of the harmful effects of television , trying to understand more fully the effect of this means of communication on younger audiences, its repercussions at a social level and define how it should be a more responsible television “. What is justification in research ?

2. Local development and microfinance as strategies to attend to social needs

“Today, states are involved in two important processes but seen too much at a global level: economics and politics. People often make the mistake of leaving aside the local, a sphere that, focusing on the economic aspect, cannot be understood without understanding the nature of small-scale social development (family, neighborhood, town …) and small economic transactions. that occur in it: microfinance. Although microfinance has been largely ignored, it undoubtedly influences socio-economic policies, albeit often in unexpected ways.

The development of a society cannot be approached only at the global level, but also by paying special interest to the local and trying to understand microfinance in its multiple dimensions: economic, social, environmental, political, cultural and institutional. The objective of this article is precisely to explore these dimensions, addressing the different theoretical approaches to the notions of local development and microfinance in order to establish them as tools for addressing the socioeconomic needs of people with fewer resources.

Since the needs and the capacity to satisfy them are indicative of the poverty of the society ,  these seemingly insignificant socio-economic aspects should be included in the political agenda  , in order to understand and design better intervention strategies for the most disadvantaged people ”.

3. Expression of rabies virus G protein in carrots and corn

“Rabies supposes great economic losses, both in cure methods and in prevention vaccines. The current vaccines are difficult to access and acquire for the population of developing countries, since they do not have the logistical or economic resources so that they The entire population is vaccinated against this pathology, which is why it is necessary to develop new rabies vaccine alternatives, made with resources that can be obtained in countries with mostly subsistence economies.

Among the advantages of plant-derived vaccines we have lower costs in production , storage, transportation and distribution. Furthermore, it is possible to administer plant tissue to human animals without the need to purify the protein of interest. For this reason, it  is of interest to find out how the G protein of the rabies virus is expressed in vegetables, specifically in carrots and corn , plants widely cultivated throughout the world. ” What is justification in research ?

4. Comprehensive use of crustacean waste

“The shrimp industry discards every year hundreds of tons of crustacean remains, specifically the exoskeleton (the shell) and the cephalothorax (head). These parts contain a substance, chitin, which could have applications in the preservation of highly perishable foods, such as fresh fruits.

At present, several methods have been used to preserve fruit and not all of them are respectful with the environment . The objective of this research is to determine if the application of a biofilm of chitin and chitosan, obtained by green chemistry, is beneficial to extend the useful life of fruits and  propose it as a new ecological method in the conservation of the harvest  , since these two substances are neither harmful nor aggressive to the environment “.

5. Reduction of depression in old age through reminiscence therapy

“There is little work on the modification of autobiographical memories with different age groups. However, some research has suggested that life review based on the retrieval of autobiographical memories is effective in modifying such memories in people with depression.

This work is based on the results of several studies that indicate a significant reduction in depression symptoms in elderly people who have undergone a program with individual reminiscence sessions, a program that promotes recovery from positive and negative events. The objective of the present study is to  analyze what is the relationship between depressive symptoms in old age and the characteristics of autobiographical memories  , that is, what role do the memories obtained that explain reduce the symptoms of depression play “.

6. Adherence to pharmacological treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes

“Diabetes mellitus is a disease strongly determined by genetics, in which the individual presents alterations in the metabolism of carbohydrates, proteins and fats, with a relative or absolute deficit of insulin secretion. Between 85 and 90% of patients with diabetes mellitus are type 2 diabetic and it is chronic. What is justification in research ?

We understand as adherence to a treatment the behavior of the patient when it coincides with the medical prescription, taking the prescribed drugs, following prescribed diets or maintaining healthy lifestyle habits . Adherence to a treatment is important to evaluate the clinical evolution of a pathology. Studies indicate that 50% of people with chronic diseases comply with their treatment, with several risk factors for this not being the case.

We consider it important to identify in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus what is the frequency of therapeutic non-adherence, what relationship it has with metabolic control, in addition to more precisely detecting which are the most common associated risk factors, in order to carry out tending programs to change their behavior  in order to encourage them to follow the treatment that has been prescribed for them  . ”

7. Relationship between family climate and school climate

“Classic studies, like that of Bernstein in the 70s, point out that the negative or positive attitude of the adolescent towards the teachers can be determined by the perception that his family has about the educational field. Both the family environment and the attitude towards authority in the classroom seem to be two very important factors in explaining violent behavior in adolescence in the school context .

Taking this into account, the main objective of this work has been to  examine the relationship between both contexts from the adolescent’s perception of the family and school climates  , analyzing the role played by different individual factors in the interaction between these two contexts ” .

8. Prevention of gender violence in universities

“University faculties are not places outside of gender violence. As a social problem that it is, gender violence affects women of all social classes , ages, cultures and economic levels, and overcomes the classic stereotypes associated with those who suffer it , why and where it occurs It does not matter if it is a socio-economically unfavorable context or if you are in the most select private university: violence against women is everywhere. What is justification in research ?

For this reason, the purpose of this research has been to  analyze the existence of gender-based violence in Spanish universities and to identify and develop measures that can help prevent it  , detecting the main foci, motives and contexts in which there are more possibilities for it to occur. produce in the university population “.

9. Linguistic study in children with Down syndrome

“This final degree project focuses on Down Syndrome , specifically on defining the basic abilities possessed by people with this intellectual disability , focusing on the processes of literacy during Primary Education.

The purpose of the study is to  obtain information that will help those families who have a member with this syndrome  , in order to help them progress taking into account their linguistic abilities and develop resources that allow the acquisition of theoretical-practical skills to be able to progress at work , socially and personally “.

10. Effects of the implementation of a VAT system in the United Arab Emirates

“The six member countries of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCEAG) agreed to launch a common market to increase investment and trade among their members. To facilitate this proposal, the countries agreed to implement a value -added tax system (VAT) for the year 2012.

It is very necessary to evaluate the basic principles and the social and economic implications that this new measure could have before it is officially applied  . The purpose of this work is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the proposed VAT system and what socio-economic repercussions it could imply for the Gulf countries, in addition to identifying possible risks and developing preventive strategies. ” What is justification in research ?

11. Study on the benefits of reading aloud to students

“One of the most traditional pedagogical techniques is to read aloud to students. One student reads aloud, while the others follow the reading in their respective books, being aware of which line they go to and, if any, the teacher so requests, change another student to read aloud.

Although classic, the benefits of reading aloud and listening for content acquisition in class have not been fully evaluated. Among the suspected benefits of this technique we have that the student not only learns to control the volume of his voice or knows how to project it in a public context such as the class, but also, if he has to listen, it allows him to improve the capacity active listening, internalizing academic knowledge.

The objective of the present investigation is to find out to what extent these suspected advantages are real, and to  see if the method of reading aloud to students, both by the teacher and by one of them, improves comprehension and skills. It feeds the student’s critical thinking  , following the class more and asking himself questions about the content while simultaneously acquiring it “.

12. Project to increase production in Chino Winds

“Before 1992, the Yavapai ranch was exploited in a traditional way. About two-thirds of the ranch was not fenced and a rather simple irrigation system was used. The cattle walked freely all year round within this portion of land, having little control of what they ate and without exposing potentially fertile areas that could be used for growing fruits, vegetables , and cereals. Livestock’s favorite areas were those near water sources, wasted as there was no complex irrigation system to irrigate the entire property. What is justification in research ?

The poor exploitation of the Yavapai Ranch is surprising since, taking into account its potential profitability, it turns out to be a great wasted production opportunity. The reason for this project is to improve the irrigation system and make better use of the land, hoping for a greater increase in production and consequently a greater obtaining of income that defies investment costs. In addition, by  controlling grazing, it is expected to improve the vegetation cover of the historically exploited areas  on the ranch, albeit passively. ”

13. Teaching mathematics and understanding its usefulness in real life

“Until today, the way of teaching mathematics has focused on giving the student a definition or a formula, showing them an example of how to use it and hoping that they know how to imitate it, without explaining or having the certainty that they understand what they have to do Nor does it promote the development of the student’s creative and integrative capacity, memorization is more emphasized than comprehension, and traditional tools do not provide the tools to investigate, analyze and discern the problem.

The main objective and motive of this project is to make students learn to use mathematics in their day to day, learning that they are useful for all kinds of areas beyond the subject of mathematics: economics, technology, science … So, It is proposed to give them real examples, in which they themselves have to use their knowledge and resolution capacity to propose a resolution process, talking to each other or communicating in the most precise way all their mental processing. What is justification in research ?

The justification for this project is the large number of students who, after being explained what to do or what formula to apply, detach it from reality itself. There are not a few students who when they finish the mathematics course it is as if they had not learned anything, in the sense that they are not able to see the relationship between what they have learned in that subject and their real life. The subject of mathematics is not in the curriculum to teach useless content, but to  make it easier for people to understand reality and solve problems in real life  , like any other subject “.

14. Study on the reproduction of sockeye salmon in Canada

“The objective of this study is to observe and analyze the habits of the sockeye salmon from the Fraser River (British Columbia, Canada). The justification for this research is that, due to global environmental changes and the increase in the temperature of the water, it has been found that the population of this species in this area has changed, not being certain that the species is out of danger and even suspecting a possible risk that the sockeye salmon could end up being a threatened species ”

The incidence of human beings on this species is well known and historical, since the exploitation of natural resources in its habitat and other economic activities had already dramatically modified the ecological niche where sockeye salmon develop and reproduce. Knowing what the adaptation and change processes of this species  have been, more specific conservation programs can be developed, in addition to starting environmental projects  that prevent the total disappearance of the sockeye salmon “.

15. Justification of the treatment and use of laboratory animals

“The use of animals in scientific research is something historically seen as necessary since there are ethical codes that protect people from taking part in experiments without their consent or causing them some kind of damage, both physical and mental. Although to a certain extent Necessary point, animal research has opened many debates, since the use of non-human animals is done to test techniques that would never be used in humans, such as implanting diseases, testing potentially dangerous drugs or removing vital parts.

Despite the fact that throughout the 20th century and what we have been in the 21st, multiple ethical codes have been developed in which the ethical treatment of laboratory animals is addressed, the simple fact of using them without their consent is an aspect that movements animalists do not overlook.  Research should be carried out only if there is a clear scientific purpose, and that involves minimal harm and suffering to the animal.

This point is not the justification for actual research , but rather what is deemed necessary to justify research using animals. The scientific purpose of the research  must have a great potential benefit for scientific knowledge at the cost of suffering  , preferably not very serious, of the animal. The species that are chosen must be the most appropriate, that they are not in danger of extinction or protected by law and that it is known how to treat them in the least stressful way possible but that implies some kind of scientific benefit “.

Related Articles

Methodological framework definition/structure/examples, what are secondary groups characteristics and examples, what are the main types of research/definition/characteristics, guidelines for writing scientific research paper/structure/tips, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Please input characters displayed above.

Customize Your Path

Filters Applied

Customize Your Experience.

Utilize the "Customize Your Path" feature to refine the information displayed in myRESEARCHpath based on your role, project inclusions, sponsor or funding, and management center.

Develop the budget and justification

Need assistance with budgets or budget justifications?

Get help with budgets or budget justifications.

Contact the Office of Research Support (Provost Area or University Campus):

• Department specialist directory

Contact the Research Navigators (School of Medicine or School of Nursing):

• Email:  [email protected]

It is essential to the success of the project to carefully and accurately assess all of the financial needs of the research project, and to be able to justify the necessity of these expenses.  Developing an accurate budget can take time, particularly if the project includes Key Personnel from other departments, will involve external consultants, involves technologies or international activities, or includes sub-awards or agreements with other institutions or partners. 

Principal investigators (PIs) should work closely with their grant manager or financial practice manager as early as possible when developing budgets and justifications. PIs should contact [email protected] to find out who to contact or if they do not have departmental resources available.

Budgeting personnel effort and salary

For all personnel on the research project, budgeted effort must be adequate to complete the responsibilities associated with the scope of work. 

• Access the Budget and manage effort commitments page for additional information and special considerations for effort commitments. 

Additional guidance

• Access the ORS guide on  salaries and wages .
• Access the Plan the project or methodology page to connect to support offices about appropriate effort needs in the project's budget.
• Access the Design analysis plan page to connect to support offices about appropriate statistical support needs in the project's budget. 
• Access the Hire and engage personnel, students, and volunteers  page for information about the hiring process and allowable activities by role.

Institutional Base Salary (IBS) is the basis for both calculating salaries when developing a proposal budget and for managing effort on a funded project regardless of the appointment type (9 months, 10 months, 12 months). All salary costs applied to sponsored projects are based on the total amount of effort available after taking into account other commitments in support of Duke University activities only. These activities may include instruction, research, administrative activities (committees, chair, director, etc.), and clinical trials and exclude supplemental/extraordinary pay, outside consulting, and study section honoraria.

Duke Appointment Model

Effective July 1, 2022, Duke University School of Medicine (SoM) and School of Nursing (SoN) implemented a Faculty Appointment Model which represents a faculty member’s efforts in support of Duke University as a percent of 12 calendar months.

SoM and SoN Faculty will have 100% appointments unless they also have additional professional effort that includes: outside clinical obligations (PDC), VA Appointments, formally approved Flexible Work arrangements, direct-paid DKU Appointments, direct-paid NUS Appointments, or other reduced schedules.

Access guidance and resources about the Duke Appointment Model .

Campus faculty appointments are generally 9-month appointments with the ability to recover up to, but no more than, 3 summer months. (An academic year runs from September to August and is not tied to the Duke fiscal year.) Duke spreads the 9-month IBS across the 12-month fiscal year, which can impact the calculation of 1 month.

Converting person months

A “person month” is the metric for expressing the effort (amount of time) principal investigators (PIs), faculty and other key personnel devote to a specific project. The effort is based on the type of appointment of the individual with the organization; e.g., calendar year (CY), academic year (AY), and/or summer term (SM); and the organization’s definition of such. For instance, some institutions define the academic year as a 9-month appointment while others define it as a 10-month appointment. Access this guide to  calculating person months .

As of September 2021, SAP salary and effort information feeds into SPS so that all relevant parties working on grant applications can access salaries for individuals participating in research.

For step-by-step guidance and how-to videos on entering salaries in SPS, visit the  Managing Salaries in SPS guide . This is mandatory training for SOM/SON SPS users with editing/viewing rights.

Additional budget and cost considerations

When developing the budget, consider how each proposed cost relates to the scope of work of the proposed project.

Types of costs that should be included in a proposal for funding:

Fringe benefits

Subrecipients, subawards, vendors and consultants, equipment costs.

• Access the  Determine compute and data storage solutions  page to connect with support offices about budget needs for data storage and computing.
• Access the  Find equipment, resources, and Service Centers   page to connect with support offices about budget needs for equipment and utilizing Duke Service Centers. 

Supplies and materials

Travel costs.

• May include participation in conferences to present project specific results

Conference related costs

• Primary purpose is the dissemination of technical information
• Must be necessary and reasonable for the successful performance of the award and managed to minimize costs to the award
• Allowable costs may include rental of facilities, speakers’ fees, costs of meals and refreshments, local transportation, and other items incidental to the conference
• Refer to Code of Federal Regulations Part 200 and specifically, §200.432 Conferences for additional information

Participant support costs

Participant incentives.

To connect with support offices about budget needs for participant compensation and recruitment costs visit the  Participant recruitment, retention, and engagement  page. 

Other direct costs

• equipment and computer maintenance or user fees
• extended warranties for equipment
• publication costs and page charges
• photocopying
• communication costs such as long-distance telephone and facsimiles
• fees for shared resources
• incentives for human subjects
• tuition remission

Cost sharing

Funder-specific guidance on budgets and justifications.

Select the type of project for more detailed guidance on developing a research budget and preparing a budget justification:

Commercial or industry sponsored clinical trial budgets

• Work with the business manager for all commercial or industry sponsored non-clinical trial budgets. Additional guidance coming soon!

Federally sponsored budgets

Foundations and other budgets.

Developing the budget can be an involved process - particularly if the project includes complexities. 

Common complexities include:  

personnel from other departments   

external consultants 

technology development  

international activities 

sub-awards or agreements with collaborators at other institutions or organizations 

Most sponsors provide guidelines and/or specific forms for budget preparation.  Duke also provides guidance and resources to help investigators ensure that all project costs are 1) budgeted accurately based on the needs of the project and 2) used in accordance with the approved budget. 

The best advice to avoid common errors in budgeting is: 

Start early and seek guidance.   Work with you grants administrator, research development professional, foundation relations representative, or myRESEARCHnavigators early in the process to understand the costs needed for the proposed activities. Begin developing the budget as early as possible. 

Ensure Costs are Budgeted Compliantly.   Costs may vary widely based on the type of project, sponsor, and resources required to conduct the work. Carefully and accurately assess all financial needs of the project and be able to justify the necessity of the costs. The following general principles described in the  Uniform Guidance  apply generally to costs budgeted in Duke sponsored activities: 

Allowable – a cost is allowable if it 1) is necessary and reasonable for the performance of the project, 2) is verifiable with sufficient detail and supporting documentation, 3) conforms to any limitations by the sponsor  Allocable – a cost is allocable if it 1) is necessary to carry out the activities of the project and 2) is assignable to the project (at least in part) with a high degree of accuracy  Reasonable – a cost is reasonable if it 1) does not exceed what is generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the proper and efficient performance of the project and 2) does not exceed in its nature an amount that which would be incurred by a prudent person in like circumstances  Consistently-treated – for federally funded budgets, a cost may not be assigned as a direct cost if any other cost for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated as an indirect cost 

Be a good steward of Duke’s grant funding.   When accepting funds from external sponsors, Duke agrees to follow rules and regulations and to comply with sponsor terms and conditions. 

As a non-profit institution, it is not within Duke’s mission to seek profit from its research activities; therefore, it is important that the budget represent true costs necessary to conduct the work.  All project costs should be included in the budget and be expended within the project period of the award.  To ensure proper accounting of project costs, verify all project expenses are allocated during the project period and to the appropriate funding source.  You can access financial reports for your funded projects by visiting  myRESEARCHhome  and navigating to the myReports widget.  Here you will find various reports ranging from summary financial data to fund balances to expense projections and more. The information in these reports will reflect planned expenses or changes that have not been entered in Duke’s financial systems, so make sure you are working closely with your grant administrator for the most accurate financial information. 

For foundation budgets, please be in touch with the appropriate Foundation Relations office:

• Office of Foundation Relations  (Campus Schools or Provost Area)
• Office of Foundation Relations and Strategic Partnerships at Duke Health  (School of Medicine or Nursing)

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)

Data science tools for alcohol research.

Elizabeth Powell, Ph.D.

September 07, 2023

The goal is to promote data science concepts and tools in alcohol research, integrating data across disciplines and clinical and basic sciences realms.

Data science has been a major focus of NIH, including the establishment of the Office for Data Science Strategy. Data science approaches have been used to make key findings in other research areas such as cancer and Parkinson’s disease research. The flood of data generated by NIAAA supported studies in genomics, imaging, electrophysiology and optogenetics, electronic health records, and personal wearable devices presents new challenges in analyses and interpretations and opportunities for discovery. Since 2019, NIAAA has required that human research data be stored in the NIAAA Data Archive ( NOT-AA-23-002  for most recent notice).

Statement of Work/Project Objectives

The large databases of biological and behavioral and imaging studies supported by NIAAA provide ample information for data science approaches. However, the investigators lack the tools to participate in the data ecosystem and take advantage of current statistical and computational approaches. The state of the data science field in alcohol research has advanced only slightly since this concept was introduced in 2018. While the scope of the data is broad, many of the tools needed to answer questions in alcohol research require specific applications, algorithms or toolkits that are not currently available. This initiative is expected to:

• Generate intellectual property, analytical tools and methods for alcohol research that interface within modern data ecosystems for use by entire scientific community.
• Promote harmonization of data sets within specific disciplines of alcohol research to improve scientific reproducibility and increase sharing of data across multiple scientific teams.
• Transform fragmented sets of individual data components into a coordinated ecosystem.
• Enable multiscale analysis of clinical and basic science datasets, employ modern data science techniques of artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning.
• Promote interdisciplinary collaborations between neuroscientists and data scientists.
• Adapt NIH data science tools and tactics for use in alcohol research.

Justification

The volumes of data produced by NIAAA-supported research, along with publicly available databases and future results, can be analyzed using data science approaches to find new therapeutic targets and approaches for diagnosis and treatment of alcohol use disorder. Data science includes and extends beyond bioinformatics and computational neuroscience to discover new relationships and pathways for complex systems of normal human function and during adaptations due to disorders or disease. Data science is not widespread alcohol research, and thus the field is missing opportunities for discovery and treatment.

The Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing ( NOT-OD-21-013 ) requires data sharing, yet there are limited tools and resources for combining and analyzing data from alcohol research. Since the concept was introduced in 2018, NIAAA has funded two SBIR projects for new algorithms and automated data harmonization and imputation tools. These projects are currently in Phase II. Additional tools and strategies are needed to analyze data from NIAAA research, and tools are needed to make best use of the investment in the NIAAA Data Archive.

niaaa.nih.gov

An official website of the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism