justification for research topic

• 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 Wordvice AI’s free AI Grammar Checker , 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.

How to Write the Rationale for a Research Paper

• Research Process
• Peer Review

A research rationale answers the big SO WHAT? that every adviser, peer reviewer, and editor has in mind when they critique your work. A compelling research rationale increases the chances of your paper being published or your grant proposal being funded. In this article, we look at the purpose of a research rationale, its components and key characteristics, and how to create an effective research rationale.

Updated on September 19, 2022

The rationale for your research is the reason why you decided to conduct the study in the first place. The motivation for asking the question. The knowledge gap. This is often the most significant part of your publication. It justifies the study's purpose, novelty, and significance for science or society. It's a critical part of standard research articles as well as funding proposals.

Essentially, the research rationale answers the big SO WHAT? that every (good) adviser, peer reviewer, and editor has in mind when they critique your work.

A compelling research rationale increases the chances of your paper being published or your grant proposal being funded. In this article, we look at:

• the purpose of a research rationale
• its components and key characteristics
• how to create an effective research rationale

What is a research rationale?

Think of a research rationale as a set of reasons that explain why a study is necessary and important based on its background. It's also known as the justification of the study, rationale, or thesis statement.

Essentially, you want to convince your reader that you're not reciting what other people have already said and that your opinion hasn't appeared out of thin air. You've done the background reading and identified a knowledge gap that this rationale now explains.

A research rationale is usually written toward the end of the introduction. You'll see this section clearly in high-impact-factor international journals like Nature and Science. At the end of the introduction there's always a phrase that begins with something like, "here we show..." or "in this paper we show..." This text is part of a logical sequence of information, typically (but not necessarily) provided in this order:

Here's an example from a study by Cataldo et al. (2021) on the impact of social media on teenagers' lives.

Note how the research background, gap, rationale, and objectives logically blend into each other.

The authors chose to put the research aims before the rationale. This is not a problem though. They still achieve a logical sequence. This helps the reader follow their thinking and convinces them about their research's foundation.

Elements of a research rationale

We saw that the research rationale follows logically from the research background and literature review/observation and leads into your study's aims and objectives.

This might sound somewhat abstract. A helpful way to formulate a research rationale is to answer the question, “Why is this study necessary and important?”

Generally, that something has never been done before should not be your only motivation. Use it only If you can give the reader valid evidence why we should learn more about this specific phenomenon.

A well-written introduction covers three key elements:

• What's the background to the research?
• What has been done before (information relevant to this particular study, but NOT a literature review)?
• Research rationale

Now, let's see how you might answer the question.

1. This study complements scientific knowledge and understanding

Discuss the shortcomings of previous studies and explain how'll correct them. Your short review can identify:

• Methodological limitations . The methodology (research design, research approach or sampling) employed in previous works is somewhat flawed.

Example : Here , the authors claim that previous studies have failed to explore the role of apathy “as a predictor of functional decline in healthy older adults” (Burhan et al., 2021). At the same time, we know a lot about other age-related neuropsychiatric disorders, like depression.

Their study is necessary, then, “to increase our understanding of the cognitive, clinical, and neural correlates of apathy and deconstruct its underlying mechanisms.” (Burhan et al., 2021).

• Contextual limitations . External factors have changed and this has minimized or removed the relevance of previous research.

Example : You want to do an empirical study to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of tourists visiting Sicily. Previous studies might have measured tourism determinants in Sicily, but they preceded COVID-19.

• Conceptual limitations . Previous studies are too bound to a specific ideology or a theoretical framework.

Example : The work of English novelist E. M. Forster has been extensively researched for its social, political, and aesthetic dimensions. After the 1990s, younger scholars wanted to read his novels as an example of gay fiction. They justified the need to do so based on previous studies' reliance on homophobic ideology.

This kind of rationale is most common in basic/theoretical research.

2. This study can help solve a specific problem

Here, you base your rationale on a process that has a problem or is not satisfactory.

For example, patients complain about low-quality hospital care on weekends (staff shortages, inadequate attention, etc.). No one has looked into this (there is a lack of data). So, you explore if the reported problems are true and what can be done to address them. This is a knowledge gap.

Or you set out to explore a specific practice. You might want to study the pros and cons of several entry strategies into the Japanese food market.

It's vital to explain the problem in detail and stress the practical benefits of its solution. In the first example, the practical implications are recommendations to improve healthcare provision.

In the second example, the impact of your research is to inform the decision-making of businesses wanting to enter the Japanese food market.

This kind of rationale is more common in applied/practical research.

3. You're the best person to conduct this study

It's a bonus if you can show that you're uniquely positioned to deliver this study, especially if you're writing a funding proposal .

For an anthropologist wanting to explore gender norms in Ethiopia, this could be that they speak Amharic (Ethiopia's official language) and have already lived in the country for a few years (ethnographic experience).

Or if you want to conduct an interdisciplinary research project, consider partnering up with collaborators whose expertise complements your own. Scientists from different fields might bring different skills and a fresh perspective or have access to the latest tech and equipment. Teaming up with reputable collaborators justifies the need for a study by increasing its credibility and likely impact.

When is the research rationale written?

You can write your research rationale before, or after, conducting the study.

In the first case, when you might have a new research idea, and you're applying for funding to implement it.

Or you're preparing a call for papers for a journal special issue or a conference. Here , for instance, the authors seek to collect studies on the impact of apathy on age-related neuropsychiatric disorders.

In the second case, you have completed the study and are writing a research paper for publication. Looking back, you explain why you did the study in question and how it worked out.

Although the research rationale is part of the introduction, it's best to write it at the end. Stand back from your study and look at it in the big picture. At this point, it's easier to convince your reader why your study was both necessary and important.

How long should a research rationale be?

The length of the research rationale is not fixed. Ideally, this will be determined by the guidelines (of your journal, sponsor etc.).

The prestigious journal Nature , for instance, calls for articles to be no more than 6 or 8 pages, depending on the content. The introduction should be around 200 words, and, as mentioned, two to three sentences serve as a brief account of the background and rationale of the study, and come at the end of the introduction.

If you're not provided guidelines, consider these factors:

• Research document : In a thesis or book-length study, the research rationale will be longer than in a journal article. For example, the background and rationale of this book exploring the collective memory of World War I cover more than ten pages.
• Research question : Research into a new sub-field may call for a longer or more detailed justification than a study that plugs a gap in literature.

Which verb tenses to use in the research rationale?

It's best to use the present tense. Though in a research proposal, the research rationale is likely written in the future tense, as you're describing the intended or expected outcomes of the research project (the gaps it will fill, the problems it will solve).

Example of a research rationale

Research question : What are the teachers' perceptions of how a sense of European identity is developed and what underlies such perceptions?

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3(2), 77-101.

Burhan, A.M., Yang, J., & Inagawa, T. (2021). Impact of apathy on aging and age-related neuropsychiatric disorders. Research Topic. Frontiers in Psychiatry

Cataldo, I., Lepri, B., Neoh, M. J. Y., & Esposito, G. (2021). Social media usage and development of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence: A review. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 11.

CiCe Jean Monnet Network (2017). Guidelines for citizenship education in school: Identities and European citizenship children's identity and citizenship in Europe.

Cohen, l, Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education . Eighth edition. London: Routledge.

de Prat, R. C. (2013). Euroscepticism, Europhobia and Eurocriticism: The radical parties of the right and left “vis-à-vis” the European Union P.I.E-Peter Lang S.A., Éditions Scientifiques Internationales.

European Commission. (2017). Eurydice Brief: Citizenship education at school in Europe.

Polyakova, A., & Fligstein, N. (2016). Is European integration causing Europe to become more nationalist? Evidence from the 2007–9 financial crisis. Journal of European Public Policy , 23(1), 60-83.

Winter, J. (2014). Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The AJE Team

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

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.

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.

Rationale for the Study

It is important for you to be able to explain the importance of the research you are conducting by providing valid arguments. Rationale for the study, also referred to as justification for the study, is reason why you have conducted your study in the first place. This part in your paper needs to explain uniqueness and importance of your research. Rationale for the study needs to be specific and ideally, it should relate to the following points:

1. The research needs to contribute to the elimination of a gap in the literature. Elimination of gap in the present literature is one of the compulsory requirements for your study. In other words, you don’t need to ‘re-invent the wheel’ and your research aims and objectives need to focus on new topics. For example, you can choose to conduct an empirical study to assess the implications of COVID-19 pandemic on the numbers of tourists visitors in your city. This might be previously undressed topic, taking into account that COVID-19 pandemic is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Alternatively, if you cannot find a new topic to research, you can attempt to offer fresh perspectives on existing management, business or economic issues. For example, while thousands of studies have been previously conducted to study various aspects of leadership, this topic as far from being exhausted as a research area. Specifically, new studies can be conducted in the area of leadership to analyze the impacts of new communication mediums such as TikTok, and other social networking sites on leadership practices.

You can also discuss the shortcomings of previous works devoted to your research area. Shortcomings in previous studies can be divided into three groups:

a) Methodological limitations . Methodology employed in previous study may be flawed in terms of research design, research approach or sampling.

b) Contextual limitations . Relevance of previous works may be non-existent for the present because external factors have changed.

c) Conceptual limitations . Previous studies may be unjustifiably bound up to a particular model or an ideology.

While discussing the shortcomings of previous studies you should explain how you are going to correct them. This principle is true to almost all areas in business studies i.e. gaps or shortcomings in the literature can be found in relation to almost all areas of business and economics.

2. The research can be conducted to solve a specific problem. It helps if you can explain why you are the right person and in the right position to solve the problem. You have to explain the essence of the problem in a detailed manner and highlight practical benefits associated with the solution of the problem. Suppose, your dissertation topic is “a study into advantages and disadvantages of various entry strategies into Chinese market”. In this case, you can say that practical implications of your research relates to assisting businesses aiming to enter Chinese market to do more informed decision making.

Alternatively, if your research is devoted to the analysis of impacts of CSR programs and initiatives on brand image, practical contributions of your study would relate to contributing to the level of effectiveness of CSR programs of businesses.

Additional examples of studies that can assist to address specific practical problems may include the following:

• A study into the reasons of high employee turnover at Hanson Brick
• A critical analysis of employee motivation problems at Esporta, Finchley Road, London
• A research into effective succession planning at Microsoft
• A study into major differences between private and public primary education in the USA and implications of these differences on the quality of education

However, it is important to note that it is not an obligatory for a dissertation   to be associated with the solution of a specific problem. Dissertations can be purely theory-based as well. Examples of such studies include the following:

• Born or bred: revising The Great Man theory of leadership in the 21 st century
• A critical analysis of the relevance of McClelland’s Achievement theory to the US information technology industry
• Neoliberalism as a major reason behind the emergence of the global financial and economic crisis of 2007-2009
• Analysis of Lewin’s Model of Change and its relevance to pharmaceutical sector of France

3. Your study has to contribute to the level of professional development of the researcher . That is you. You have to explain in a detailed manner in what ways your research contributes to the achievement of your long-term career aspirations.

For example, you have selected a research topic of “ A critical analysis of the relevance of McClelland’s Achievement theory in the US information technology industry ”.  You may state that you associate your career aspirations with becoming an IT executive in the US, and accordingly, in-depth knowledge of employee motivation in this industry is going to contribute your chances of success in your chosen career path.

Therefore, you are in a better position if you have already identified your career objectives, so that during the research process you can get detailed knowledge about various aspects of your chosen industry.

My e-book, The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline.

John Dudovskiy

What Is A Research Proposal?

Plain Language Explainer With Examples + Free Template

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020 (Updated April 2023)

Overview: Research Proposal Basics

• What a research proposal is
• What a research proposal needs to cover
• How to structure your research proposal
• Example /sample proposals
• Proposal writing FAQs
• Key takeaways & additional resources

What is a research proposal?

Simply put, a research proposal is a structured, formal document that explains what you plan to research (your research topic), why it’s worth researching (your justification), and how  you plan to investigate it (your methodology). 

The purpose of the research proposal (its job, so to speak) is to convince  your research supervisor, committee or university that your research is  suitable  (for the requirements of the degree program) and  manageable  (given the time and resource constraints you will face). 

The most important word here is “ convince ” – in other words, your research proposal needs to  sell  your research idea (to whoever is going to approve it). If it doesn’t convince them (of its suitability and manageability), you’ll need to revise and resubmit . This will cost you valuable time, which will either delay the start of your research or eat into its time allowance (which is bad news). 

What goes into a research proposal?

A good dissertation or thesis proposal needs to cover the “ what “, “ why ” and” how ” of the proposed study. Let’s look at each of these attributes in a little more detail:

Your proposal needs to clearly articulate your research topic . This needs to be specific and unambiguous . Your research topic should make it clear exactly what you plan to research and in what context. Here’s an example of a well-articulated research topic:

An investigation into the factors which impact female Generation Y consumer’s likelihood to promote a specific makeup brand to their peers: a British context

As you can see, this topic is extremely clear. From this one line we can see exactly:

• What’s being investigated – factors that make people promote or advocate for a brand of a specific makeup brand
• Who it involves – female Gen-Y consumers
• In what context – the United Kingdom

Need a helping hand?

As we touched on earlier, it’s not good enough to simply propose a research topic – you need to justify why your topic is original . In other words, what makes it  unique ? What gap in the current literature does it fill? If it’s simply a rehash of the existing research, it’s probably not going to get approval – it needs to be fresh.

But,  originality  alone is not enough. Once you’ve ticked that box, you also need to justify why your proposed topic is  important . In other words, what value will it add to the world if you achieve your research aims?

As an example, let’s look at the sample research topic we mentioned earlier (factors impacting brand advocacy). In this case, if the research could uncover relevant factors, these findings would be very useful to marketers in the cosmetics industry, and would, therefore, have commercial value . That is a clear justification for the research.

So, when you’re crafting your research proposal, remember that it’s not enough for a topic to simply be unique. It needs to be useful and value-creating – and you need to convey that value in your proposal. If you’re struggling to find a research topic that makes the cut, watch  our video covering how to find a research topic .

It’s all good and well to have a great topic that’s original and valuable, but you’re not going to convince anyone to approve it without discussing the practicalities – in other words:

• How will you actually undertake your research (i.e., your methodology)?
• Is your research methodology appropriate given your research aims?
• Is your approach manageable given your constraints (time, money, etc.)?

While it’s generally not expected that you’ll have a fully fleshed-out methodology at the proposal stage, you’ll likely still need to provide a high-level overview of your research methodology . Here are some important questions you’ll need to address in your research proposal:

• Will you take a qualitative , quantitative or mixed -method approach?
• What sampling strategy will you adopt?
• How will you collect your data (e.g., interviews , surveys, etc)?
• How will you analyse your data (e.g., descriptive and inferential statistics , content analysis, discourse analysis, etc, .)?
• What potential limitations will your methodology carry?

So, be sure to give some thought to the practicalities of your research and have at least a basic methodological plan before you start writing up your proposal. If this all sounds rather intimidating, the video below provides a good introduction to research methodology and the key choices you’ll need to make.

How To Structure A Research Proposal

Now that we’ve covered the key points that need to be addressed in a proposal, you may be wondering, “ But how is a research proposal structured? “.

While the exact structure and format required for a research proposal differs from university to university, there are four “essential ingredients” that commonly make up the structure of a research proposal:

• A rich introduction and background to the proposed research
• An initial literature review covering the existing research
• An overview of the proposed research methodology
• A discussion regarding the practicalities (project plans, timelines, etc.)

In the video below, we unpack each of these four sections, step by step.

Research Proposal Examples/Samples

In the video below, we provide a detailed walkthrough of two successful research proposals (Master’s and PhD-level), as well as our popular free proposal template.

Proposal Writing FAQs

How long should a research proposal be.

This varies tremendously, depending on the university, the field of study (e.g., social sciences vs natural sciences), and the level of the degree (e.g. undergraduate, Masters or PhD) – so it’s always best to check with your university what their specific requirements are before you start planning your proposal.

As a rough guide, a formal research proposal at Masters-level often ranges between 2000-3000 words, while a PhD-level proposal can be far more detailed, ranging from 5000-8000 words. In some cases, a rough outline of the topic is all that’s needed, while in other cases, universities expect a very detailed proposal that essentially forms the first three chapters of the dissertation or thesis.

The takeaway – be sure to check with your institution before you start writing.

How do I choose a topic for my research proposal?

Finding a good research topic is a process that involves multiple steps. We cover the topic ideation process in this video post.

How do I write a literature review for my proposal?

While you typically won’t need a comprehensive literature review at the proposal stage, you still need to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the key literature and are able to synthesise it. We explain the literature review process here.

How do I create a timeline and budget for my proposal?

We explain how to craft a project plan/timeline and budget in Research Proposal Bootcamp .

Which referencing format should I use in my research proposal?

The expectations and requirements regarding formatting and referencing vary from institution to institution. Therefore, you’ll need to check this information with your university.

What common proposal writing mistakes do I need to look out for?

We’ve create a video post about some of the most common mistakes students make when writing a proposal – you can access that here . If you’re short on time, here’s a quick summary:

• The research topic is too broad (or just poorly articulated).
• The research aims, objectives and questions don’t align.
• The research topic is not well justified.
• The study has a weak theoretical foundation.
• The research design is not well articulated well enough.
• Poor writing and sloppy presentation.
• Poor project planning and risk management.
• Not following the university’s specific criteria.

Key Takeaways & Additional Resources

As you write up your research proposal, remember the all-important core purpose:  to convince . Your research proposal needs to sell your study in terms of suitability and viability. So, focus on crafting a convincing narrative to ensure a strong proposal.

At the same time, pay close attention to your university’s requirements. While we’ve covered the essentials here, every institution has its own set of expectations and it’s essential that you follow these to maximise your chances of approval.

By the way, we’ve got plenty more resources to help you fast-track your research proposal. Here are some of our most popular resources to get you started:

• Proposal Writing 101 : A Introductory Webinar
• Research Proposal Bootcamp : The Ultimate Online Course
• Template : A basic template to help you craft your proposal

If you’re looking for 1-on-1 support with your research proposal, be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the proposal development process (and the entire research journey), step by step.

Ace Your Research Proposal

How To Choose A Tutor For Your Dissertation

Hiring the right tutor for your dissertation or thesis can make the difference between passing and failing. Here’s what you need to consider.

5 Signs You Need A Dissertation Helper

Discover the 5 signs that suggest you need a dissertation helper to get unstuck, finish your degree and get your life back.

How To Choose A Research Topic: 5 Key Criteria

How To Choose A Research Topic Step-By-Step Tutorial With Examples + Free Topic...

Writing A Research Proposal: 4 Hacks To Fast-Track The Process

🎙️ PODCAST: Writing A Research Proposal 4 Time-Saving Tips To Fast-Track Your...

Research Proposal Essentials: 5 Critical Dos & Don’ts

Learn about 5 critically important things that you need to do (or avoid doing) when writing a research proposal for a dissertation or thesis.

📄 FREE TEMPLATES

Research Topic Ideation

Proposal Writing

Literature Review

Methodology & Analysis

Academic Writing

Referencing & Citing

Apps, Tools & Tricks

The Grad Coach Podcast

53 Comments

I truly enjoyed this video, as it was eye-opening to what I have to do in the preparation of preparing a Research proposal.

I would be interested in getting some coaching.

I real appreciate on your elaboration on how to develop research proposal,the video explains each steps clearly.

Thank you for the video. It really assisted me and my niece. I am a PhD candidate and she is an undergraduate student. It is at times, very difficult to guide a family member but with this video, my job is done.

In view of the above, I welcome more coaching.

Wonderful guidelines, thanks

Your explanation to how a research proposal should be has or have being well explained and therfore I will be much grateful with you to continue with your good work done

This is very helpful. Would love to continue even as I prepare for starting my masters next year.

Thanks for the work done, the text was helpful to me

Bundle of thanks to you for the research proposal guide it was really good and useful if it is possible please send me the sample of research proposal

You’re most welcome. We don’t have any research proposals that we can share (the students own the intellectual property), but you might find our research proposal template useful: https://gradcoach.com/research-proposal-template/

Cheruiyot Moses Kipyegon

Thanks alot. It was an eye opener that came timely enough before my imminent proposal defense. Thanks, again

thank you very much your lesson is very interested may God be with you

I am an undergraduate student (First Degree) preparing to write my project,this video and explanation had shed more light to me thanks for your efforts keep it up.

Very useful. I am grateful.

this is a very a good guidance on research proposal, for sure i have learnt something

Wonderful guidelines for writing a research proposal, I am a student of m.phil( education), this guideline is suitable for me. Thanks

You’re welcome 🙂

Thank you, this was so helpful.

A really great and insightful video. It opened my eyes as to how to write a research paper. I would like to receive more guidance for writing my research paper from your esteemed faculty.

Thank you, great insights

Thank you, great insights, thank you so much, feeling edified

Wow thank you, great insights, thanks a lot

Thank you. This is a great insight. I am a student preparing for a PhD program. I am requested to write my Research Proposal as part of what I am required to submit before my unconditional admission. I am grateful having listened to this video which will go a long way in helping me to actually choose a topic of interest and not just any topic as well as to narrow down the topic and be specific about it. I indeed need more of this especially as am trying to choose a topic suitable for a DBA am about embarking on. Thank you once more. The video is indeed helpful.

Have learnt a lot just at the right time. Thank you so much.

thank you very much ,because have learn a lot things concerning research proposal and be blessed u for your time that you providing to help us

Hi. For my MSc medical education research, please evaluate this topic for me: Training Needs Assessment of Faculty in Medical Training Institutions in Kericho and Bomet Counties

I have really learnt a lot based on research proposal and it’s formulation

Thank you. I learn much from the proposal since it is applied

Your effort is much appreciated – you have good articulation.

You have good articulation.

I do applaud your simplified method of explaining the subject matter, which indeed has broaden my understanding of the subject matter. Definitely this would enable me writing a sellable research proposal.

This really helping

Great! I liked your tutoring on how to find a research topic and how to write a research proposal. Precise and concise. Thank you very much. Will certainly share this with my students. Research made simple indeed.

Thank you very much. I an now assist my students effectively.

Thank you very much. I can now assist my students effectively.

I need any research proposal

Thank you for these videos. I will need chapter by chapter assistance in writing my MSc dissertation

Very helpfull

the videos are very good and straight forward

thanks so much for this wonderful presentations, i really enjoyed it to the fullest wish to learn more from you

Thank you very much. I learned a lot from your lecture.

I really enjoy the in-depth knowledge on research proposal you have given. me. You have indeed broaden my understanding and skills. Thank you

interesting session this has equipped me with knowledge as i head for exams in an hour’s time, am sure i get A++

This article was most informative and easy to understand. I now have a good idea of how to write my research proposal.

Thank you very much.

Wow, this literature is very resourceful and interesting to read. I enjoyed it and I intend reading it every now then.

Thank you for the clarity

Thank you. Very helpful.

Thank you very much for this essential piece. I need 1o1 coaching, unfortunately, your service is not available in my country. Anyways, a very important eye-opener. I really enjoyed it. A thumb up to Gradcoach

What is JAM? Please explain.

Thank you so much for these videos. They are extremely helpful! God bless!

very very wonderful…

thank you for the video but i need a written example

So far , So good!

Submit 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.

Submit Comment

• Print Friendly

• Translation

How to write the Rationale for your research

By charlesworth author services.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 19 November, 2021

The rationale for one’s research is the justification for undertaking a given study. It states the reason(s) why a researcher chooses to focus on the topic in question, including what the significance is and what gaps the research intends to fill. In short, it is an explanation that rationalises the need for the study. The rationale is typically followed by a hypothesis/ research question (s) and the study objectives.

When is the rationale for research written?

The rationale of a study can be presented both before and after the research is conducted. 

• Before : The rationale is a crucial part of your research proposal , representing the plan of your work as formulated before you execute your study.
• After : Once the study is completed, the rationale is presented in a research paper or dissertation to explain why you focused on the particular question. In this instance, you would link the rationale of your research project to the study aims and outcomes.

Basis for writing the research rationale

The study rationale is predominantly based on preliminary data . A literature review will help you identify gaps in the current knowledge base and also ensure that you avoid duplicating what has already been done. You can then formulate the justification for your study from the existing literature on the subject and the perceived outcomes of the proposed study.

Length of the research rationale

In a research proposal or research article, the rationale would not take up more than a few sentences . A thesis or dissertation would allow for a longer description, which could even run into a couple of paragraphs . The length might even depend on the field of study or nature of the experiment. For instance, a completely novel or unconventional approach might warrant a longer and more detailed justification.

Basic elements of the research rationale

Every research rationale should include some mention or discussion of the following: 

• An overview of your conclusions from your literature review
• Gaps in current knowledge
• Inconclusive or controversial findings from previous studies
• The need to build on previous research (e.g. unanswered questions, the need to update concepts in light of new findings and/or new technical advancements). 

Example of a research rationale

Note: This uses a fictional study.

Abc xyz is a newly identified microalgal species isolated from fish tanks. While Abc xyz algal blooms have been seen as a threat to pisciculture, some studies have hinted at their unusually high carotenoid content and unique carotenoid profile. Carotenoid profiling has been carried out only in a handful of microalgal species from this genus, and the search for microalgae rich in bioactive carotenoids has not yielded promising candidates so far. This in-depth examination of the carotenoid profile of Abc xyz will help identify and quantify novel and potentially useful carotenoids from an untapped aquaculture resource .

In conclusion

It is important to describe the rationale of your research in order to put the significance and novelty of your specific research project into perspective. Once you have successfully articulated the reason(s) for your research, you will have convinced readers of the importance of your work!

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services , a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Scientific Editing Services

Sign up – stay updated.

We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

COMM U490 - Senior Seminar in Communication: What is the justification of research?

• Brainstorming
• Authors Credentials
• General Reference Sources
• Books & The Catalog
• Scholarly Journals & Articles
• Communication & Journalism Journals
• Journal Articles & Databases
• Journal Search
• What is the justification of research?
• Literature Review
• Communication Theory
• APA 7th ed. Format
• Kofoed Assignments

Define Research

Research is a process, an exhaustive and meticulous process to find answers.  It is the in-depth and systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources to establish facts and reach new conclusions. The goal of professional research is to create new knowledge about a topic or explain an old idea in new ways.  

• Tips for how to justify your methods in a thesis or dissertation

Research Justification

The goal of research is to find something new or different about a subject. The Justification is the " WHY " of your research topic or the " RATIONALE" .  The Justification comes as you are doing your in-depth analysis of the topic, as you begin your literature review.  With the beginning steps into research, you should begin to see what others were asking as their Research Question, and begin to recognize gaps in other articles that may be where you want to take your research.  The justification may also come from a new perspective on an old trope or idea that is outdated.

This portion of your research process is just the beginning it is where you do enough research to know that there is a problem that you find interesting and others have researched the topic too.  At this point in the process you should have already:

• Picked a general area of interest / Idea of the direction
• Done some brief background reading (textbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.)
• Established a problem or topic you find interesting and want to live with for the next few months
• Begun to collect, and read at least the introduction portion of some articles on the topic

NOTE: The justification portion of your paper and your thesis question may change over the process of writing a paper.  As you gain insight into the deeper elements of the topic you may find the need to reconnoiter (rework, requestion, reframe) your ideas.

• << Previous: Research
• Next: Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 8:42 AM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Comm490SrSemCommunications

Community Blog

Keep up-to-date on postgraduate related issues with our quick reads written by students, postdocs, professors and industry leaders.

How do you Write the Rationale for Research?

• By DiscoverPhDs
• October 21, 2020

What is the Rationale of Research?

The term rationale of research means the reason for performing the research study in question. In writing your rational you should able to convey why there was a need for your study to be carried out. It’s an important part of your research paper that should explain how your research was novel and explain why it was significant; this helps the reader understand why your research question needed to be addressed in your research paper, term paper or other research report.

The rationale for research is also sometimes referred to as the justification for the study. When writing your rational, first begin by introducing and explaining what other researchers have published on within your research field.

Having explained the work of previous literature and prior research, include discussion about where the gaps in knowledge are in your field. Use these to define potential research questions that need answering and explain the importance of addressing these unanswered questions.

The rationale conveys to the reader of your publication exactly why your research topic was needed and why it was significant . Having defined your research rationale, you would then go on to define your hypothesis and your research objectives.

Final Comments

Defining the rationale research, is a key part of the research process and academic writing in any research project. You use this in your research paper to firstly explain the research problem within your dissertation topic. This gives you the research justification you need to define your research question and what the expected outcomes may be.

Find out how you can use Scrivener for PhD Thesis & Dissertation writing to streamline your workflow and make academic writing fun again!

Reference management software solutions offer a powerful way for you to track and manage your academic references. Read our blog post to learn more about what they are and how to use them.

The title page of your dissertation or thesis conveys all the essential details about your project. This guide helps you format it in the correct way.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Browse PhDs Now

A well written figure legend will explain exactly what a figure means without having to refer to the main text. Our guide explains how to write one.

The scope of the study is defined at the start of the study. It is used by researchers to set the boundaries and limitations within which the research study will be performed.

Dr Clarence gained her PhD in Higher Education Studies from Rhodes University, South Africa in 2013. She is now an honorary research associate at the University and also runs her own blog about working as a researcher/parent in academia.

Dr Jain gained her PhD in Molecular Oncology from the Indian Institute of Science. She is now a science illustrator and communicator, and works with TheLifeofScience.com to initiate conversations around sci-art and women in science.

Join Thousands of Students

No internet connection.

All search filters on the page have been cleared., your search has been saved..

• Sign in to my profile My Profile

Reader's guide

Entries a-z, subject index.

• Research Justification
• Edited by: Lisa M. Given
• In: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods
• Chapter DOI: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781412963909.n392
• Subject: Anthropology , Business and Management , Criminology and Criminal Justice , Communication and Media Studies , Counseling and Psychotherapy , Economics , Education , Geography , Health , History , Marketing , Nursing , Political Science and International Relations , Psychology , Social Policy and Public Policy , Social Work , Sociology
• Show page numbers Hide page numbers

Research justification refers to the rationale for the research, or the reason why the research is being conducted, including an explanation for the design and methods employed in the research.

Elements of Research Requiring Justification

Traditionally in research conducted within any paradigm, researchers have been expected to provide an explanation about why the research is necessary. To explain the overall purpose, aims, and objectives, a rationale is constructed and may illustrate how the research endeavor addresses gaps in the existing knowledge base, contributes a new dimension or perspective, or generates theory about a phenomenon that has not been explored previously.

Another aspect of research for which one might sometimes find justification in any description is the choice of methods employed to generate data; for example, the explanation for selecting interviews, focus groups, or participant observation. Such explanations might include the opportunity to orientate to the participant's perspective through in-depth responses, to [Page 781] probe and clarify, and to ask for examples in the case of interviews.

However, it is less common in accounts of research to find an explicit rationale for the choice of research paradigm (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, postmodern, critical/subtle realist). This may be because authors are less critically reflexive about the overriding perspective they bring to their research endeavor or simply because this has not historically been expected or required in accounts of research. Certainly, the word limits imposed by editors and publishers on contributors to some journals often preclude detailed consideration of one's ontological position.

Another area within qualitative research where explanation or rationale may sometimes appear to be lacking is choice of approach or methodology (e.g., grounded theory, narrative approach, discourse analysis). This is sometimes because the explanation is implicitly woven into the description of the methodology. For example, in writing about one's choice of grounded theory as the theoretical underpinning in a research project, one is likely to allude to the lack of prior research or theorizing about the social process being explored and to cite the work of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in explaining how theory will be created and that it will be rooted in, or “grounded” in, the data generated. Thus, the implicit justification for the choice of grounded theory may be that no theory currently exists to explain a particular social phenomenon or that changing cultures and practices mean that existing theoretical explanations need to be tested and challenged with reference to new data.

Why Justification is Considered Necessary

In posing the question “Why am I doing this research?,” perhaps the most obvious response is “In order to answer a particular research question,” and indeed the intellectual and/or and practical problem prompting the research endeavor should feature prominently in any account of it.

In considering why qualitative research particularly is being carried out, the explanation is likely to include reference to a social phenomenon requiring in-depth investigation that will provide rich, complex, and detailed information about not only the object of inquiry but also the context in which it occurs. The justification may include an acknowledgment that the exact form of the inquiry is likely to be flexible and at least partly dependent on emerging ideas and theories once the project has commenced.

Linda Finlay, for example, described how an interest in and a desire to learn more about the personal experiences of people with multiple sclerosis led her to adopt a phenomenological approach involving case studies with people diagnosed with this condition. The aim of the researcher working within an existential–phenomenological tradition is to ask “What is this kind of experience like?” Finlay carried out in-depth interviews with her participants. She believed that it was important to remain open to their stories as they emerged and used questions such as “Can you describe a typical day?” and “Can you describe that particular incident in more detail?” to elicit detailed personal accounts about how multiple sclerosis affects people's lives—their roles, their aspirations, their relationships, and ultimately their sense of self. Finlay showed how phenomenology can illuminate the depth of individual experience and provided a convincing justification for the use of qualitative research approaches in general and phenomenology in particular.

An important point here is that the way in which the research problem is described, the research question is framed, and the description of the subsequent methodology and methods is adopted to address the question should be ontologically coherent. For example, a discourse analyst is unlikely to be interested in exploring people's beliefs or attitudes but will be interested in how talk and text function in the social world to perform certain actions and the resources that inform how these texts are constituted.

In reality, the answer to the question of why someone is involved in a particular research project is likely to be complex. Jennifer Mason, for example, argued that it is important to include the sociopolitical context and moral/ethical dimensions in thinking about why research is being carried out. For example, research carried out as part of a master's or PhD program is undertaken in part to fulfill academic requirements and enable the researcher to gain the degree. Research carried out within a feminist or participatory framework is likely to have additional sociopolitical objectives around giving a voice to groups often disenfranchised in more traditional sorts of research. In acknowledging these additional motivations, Mason argued that one is more likely to recognize tensions and conflicts, to think reflexively about one's own role [Page 782] in the research, to plan systematically, and to behave ethically.

How the Case for Research is Made

The way in which research justification is provided depends to a large extent on the form of text in which it is required. One of the important considerations is the space or word length that one has available to create a rationale for research enterprise. However, there are different conventions about the sorts of material to include in constituting a rationale that are also contingent on the type of text being produced. This section addresses research justification in three types of documents: research proposals or plans submitted as part of funded grant applications, papers or articles, and dissertations or theses.

In each of these three types of documents, the literature review will play a key role in establishing the rationale for the research study to be undertaken. Shane Thomas identified a number of ways of achieving this. First, there is a need to demonstrate that the question the research project has been designed to answer has not been addressed previously. This can be achieved by demonstrating that one has carried out a systematic and thorough search of the literature, often using electronic resources. In this instance, it is usual to include the keywords used to search, the electronic databases included, and the years covered. Use of previous literature to demonstrate that other eminent researchers have considered the same area and topic to be worth investigating is also a compelling way to justify one's study. Researchers frequently identify areas for further research toward the conclusions of their studies, and these can be cited in support of one's own case.

A second form of justification used to support the case for research is to illustrate that a lot of people are affected by the problem to be investigated and that it consumes a lot of resources and/or has unfortunate consequences (e.g., creating a burden of disability, resulting in chronic pain). In research exploring older people's perceptions about falls, falling, and interventions to prevent falling, for example, most researchers in this area will cite the frequently quoted statistic that one in three people over 65 years of age falls every year. This may be accompanied by information about the potential consequences of a fall such as fractures, anxiety, and admission to a nursing home.

Another strategy that may be used in support of a particular research study is to show how, by addressing this one specific research question, insight might be provided into other problems of a similar nature. For example, evidence-based guidelines have recently been published on the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) website ( http://www.profane.eu.org ), suggesting ways of increasing older people's uptake of and adherence to fall-prevention strategies. In making a case to investigate how and why older people respond to these suggestions, for example, it would seem reasonable to argue that such research might shed light not only on perspectives in relation to fall prevention but also on other public health issues affecting older people such as cardiovascular fitness and the benefits of regular exercise.

In addition to the practical benefits to be accrued from undertaking research, one can argue that important insights will be gained in terms of theory development, which in turn might also have a broader impact. To pursue the previous example, one could argue that by further developing theory around adherence to fall prevention interventions by older people, such as the barriers and facilitators to adherence, one might develop theoretical insights that would be useful in relation to other health interventions for older people such as medication.

Finally, Thomas described the case for improved services or treatment as a strategy to provide a justification for research. Much research in the public domain is funded through government bodies or charities. For example, in considering health research in the United Kingdom, the Department of Health, through its research and development initiative, has funded a considerable amount of health-focused research, as have the medical charities such as the Parkinson's Disease Society and Action Medical Research. The usual process of applying for research funding is to submit a grant application, often accompanied by a research proposal, in response to a call for proposals issued by the funding body. These may have specific remits and objectives or, alternatively, may ask applicants to identify their own focus, but they identify general criteria that the applications should fulfill.

In writing a grant proposal, one of the primary considerations that the funding body will be checking is that the application expressly meets the aims of the call for proposals. This is usually considered both by considering the aims and objectives of the proposal and by reviewing the introduction, background, and literature review to ensure that a well-argued, well-evidenced, [Page 783] and robust case has been made. The funding body will also scrutinize the proposed methods and funding details to ensure that the proposed process appears realistic, is likely to meet the objectives, and seems feasible. The experience of the researcher, particularly in managing previous funded research projects, is also pertinent.

The focus in applications for funded research, then, is on demonstrating that, as a researcher, one is familiar with the field of study, knows of relevant previous research and can see the potential to contribute a new and valuable perspective, has the capacity to successfully organize and conduct a research study, and is likely to disseminate findings effectively. These considerations will be closely linked with the funding organization's own mission and objectives. Because the reviewers might not have expertise in the specific methodology being proposed, the focus perhaps tends to fall on the practical use and application of the research and the capacity of the applicant rather than on more abstract theoretical concerns.

In written papers or articles, the researcher as author may be able to focus more on the justification for using a particular methodology to address a specific question and, depending on word length, may be able to expand on the previous literature in the field. Whereas experienced and well-resourced grant-awarding bodies may expect detailed critique and justification of the research approach to be adopted, editors of highly respected peer-reviewed journals will certainly expect these points to be addressed, albeit succinctly.

Research dissertations and theses clearly have longer maximum word limits, thereby permitting researchers/authors to write in depth. However, conventions surrounding how this is addressed in theses are also subtly different in comparison with the texts described previously. To clearly demonstrate to examiners that the authors/students clearly understand the nature of what they are doing and the traditions within which they are working, justification of all elements of the research is required, including the aim and purpose, paradigm, particular methodology adopted, methods used, and form of analysis. For students, therefore, the production of the literature review is a key opportunity to demonstrate a critical capacity and the ability to marshal one's arguments effectively.

• justification
• Social Sciences, Qualitative Research in
• Understanding

Further Readings

• Researcher Sensitivity
• Research Literature
• A/r/tography
• Action Research
• Advocacy Research
• Applied Research
• Appreciative Inquiry
• Artifact Analysis
• Arts-Based Research
• Arts-Informed Research
• Autobiography
• Autoethnography
• Basic Research
• Clinical Research
• Collaborative Research
• Community-Based Research
• Comparative Research
• Content Analysis
• Conversation Analysis
• Covert Research
• Critical Action Research
• Critical Arts-Based Inquiry
• Critical Discourse Analysis
• Critical Ethnography
• Critical Hermeneutics
• Critical Research
• Cross-Cultural Research
• Discourse Analysis
• Document Analysis
• Duoethnography
• Ecological Research
• Emergent Design
• Empirical Research
• Empowerment Evaluation
• Ethnography
• Ethnomethodology
• Evaluation Research
• Evidence-Based Practice
• Explanatory Research
• Exploratory Data Analysis
• Feminist Research
• Field Research
• Foucauldian Discourse Analysis
• Genealogical Approach
• Grounded Theory
• Hermeneutics
• Heuristic Inquiry
• Historical Discourse Analysis
• Historical Research
• Historiography
• Indigenous Research
• Institutional Ethnography
• Institutional Research
• Interdisciplinary Research
• Internet in Qualitative Research
• Interpretive Inquiry
• Interpretive Phenomenology
• Interpretive Research
• Market Research
• Meta-Analysis
• Meta-Ethnography
• Meta-Synthesis
• Methodological Holism Versus Individualism
• Methodology
• Mixed Methods Research
• Multicultural Research
• Narrative Analysis
• Narrative Genre Analysis
• Narrative Inquiry
• Naturalistic Inquiry
• Observational Research
• Oral History
• Orientational Perspective
• Para-Ethnography
• Participatory Action Research (PAR)
• Performance Ethnography
• Phenomenography
• Phenomenology
• Place/Space in Qualitative Research
• Playbuilding
• Portraiture
• Program Evaluation
• Q Methodology
• Readers Theater
• Social Justice
• Social Network Analysis
• Survey Research
• Systemic Inquiry
• Theatre of the Oppressed
• Transformational Methods
• Unobtrusive Research
• Value-Free Inquiry
• Virtual Ethnography
• Virtual Research
• Visual Ethnography
• Visual Narrative Inquiry
• Bricolage and Bricoleur
• Connoisseurship
• Dance in Qualitative Research
• Ethnopoetics
• Fictional Writing
• Film and Video in Qualitative Research
• Literature in Qualitative Research
• Multimedia in Qualitative Research
• Music in Qualitative Research
• Photographs in Qualitative Research
• Photonovella and Photovoice
• Poetry in Qualitative Research
• Researcher as Artist
• Storytelling
• Visual Research
• Association for Qualitative Research (AQR)
• Center for Interpretive and Qualitative Research
• International Association of Qualitative Inquiry
• International Institute for Qualitative Methodology
• ResearchTalk, Inc.
• ATLAS.ti"(Software)
• Computer-Assisted Data Analysis
• Diction (Software)
• Ethnograph (Software)
• Framework (Software)
• HyperRESEARCH (Software)
• MAXqda (Software)
• NVivo (Software)
• Qualrus (Software)
• SuperHyperQual (Software)
• TextQuest (Software)
• Transana (Software)
• Analytic Induction
• ATLAS.ti" (Software)
• Audience Analysis
• Axial Coding
• Categorization
• Co-Constructed Narrative
• Codes and Coding
• Coding Frame
• Comparative Analysis
• Concept Mapping
• Conceptual Ordering
• Constant Comparison
• Context and Contextuality
• Context-Centered Knowledge
• Core Category
• Counternarrative
• Creative Writing
• Cultural Context
• Data Analysis
• Data Management
• Data Saturation
• Descriptive Statistics
• Discursive Practice
• Diversity Issues
• Embodied Knowledge
• Emergent Themes
• Emic/Etic Distinction
• Emotions in Qualitative Research
• Ethnographic Content Analysis
• Ethnostatistics
• Evaluation Criteria
• Everyday Life
• Experiential Knowledge
• Explanation
• Gender Issues
• Heteroglossia
• Historical Context
• Horizonalization
• Imagination in Qualitative Research
• In Vivo Coding
• Indexicality
• Interpretation
• Intertextuality
• Liminal Perspective
• Literature Review
• Lived Experience
• Marginalization
• Membership Categorization Device Analysis (MCDA)
• Memos and Memoing
• Meta-Narrative
• Negative Case Analysis
• Nonverbal Communication
• Open Coding
• Peer Review
• Psychological Generalization
• Rapid Assessment Process
• Reconstructive Analysis
• Recursivity
• Reflexivity
• Research Diaries and Journals
• Researcher as Instrument
• Response Groups
• Rhythmanalysis
• Rigor in Qualitative Research
• Secondary Analysis
• Selective Coding
• Situatedness
• Social Context
• Systematic Sociological Introspection
• Tacit Knowledge
• Textual Analysis
• Thematic Coding and Analysis
• Theoretical Memoing
• Theoretical Saturation
• Thick Description
• Transcription
• Typological Analysis
• Video Intervention/Prevention Assessment
• Visual Data
• Visual Data Displays
• Writing Process
• Active Listening
• Audiorecording
• Captive Population
• Closed Question
• Cognitive Interview
• Convenience Sample
• Convergent Interviewing
• Conversational Interviewing
• Covert Observation
• Critical Incident Technique
• Data Archive
• Data Collection
• Data Generation
• Data Security
• Data Storage
• Diaries and Journals
• Email Interview
• Focus Groups
• Free Association Narrative Interview
• In-Depth Interview
• In-Person Interview
• Interactive Focus Groups
• Interactive Interview
• Interview Guide
• Interviewing
• Leaving the Field
• Life Stories
• Narrative Interview
• Narrative Texts
• Natural Setting
• Naturalistic Data
• Naturalistic Observation
• Negotiating Exit
• Neutral Question
• Neutrality in Qualitative Research
• Nonparticipant Observation
• Nonprobability Sampling
• Observation Schedule
• Open-Ended Question
• Participant Observation
• Peer Debriefing
• Pilot Study
• Probes and Probing
• Projective Techniques
• Prolonged Engagement
• Psychoanalytically Informed Observation
• Purposive Sampling
• Quota Sampling
• Random Sampling
• Recruiting Participants
• Research Problem
• Research Question
• Research Setting
• Research Team
• Researcher Roles
• Researcher Safety
• Sample Size
• Sampling Frame
• Secondary Data
• Semi-Structured Interview
• Sensitizing Concepts
• Serendipity
• Snowball Sampling
• Stratified Sampling
• Structured Interview
• Structured Observation
• Subjectivity Statement
• Telephone Interview
• Theoretical Sampling
• Triangulation
• Unstructured Interview
• Unstructured Observation
• Videorecording
• Virtual Interview
• Ethnography (Journal)
• Field Methods (Journal)
• Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Journal)
• International Journal of Qualitative Methods
• Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
• Journal of Mixed Methods Research
• Narrative Inquiry (Journal)
• Oral History Review (Journal)
• Qualitative Health Research (Journal)
• Qualitative Inquiry (Journal)
• Qualitative Report, The (Journal)
• Qualitative Research (Journal)
• Advances in Qualitative Methods Conference
• Ethnographic and Qualitative Research Conference
• First-Person Voice
• Interdisciplinary Qualitative Studies Conference
• International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry
• International Human Science Research Conference
• Publishing and Publication
• Qualitative Health Research Conference
• Representational Forms of Dissemination
• Research Proposal
• Education, Qualitative Research in
• Evolution of Qualitative Research
• Health Sciences, Qualitative Research in
• Humanities, Qualitative Research in
• Politics of Qualitative Research
• Qualitative Research, History of
• Confidentiality
• Conflict of Interest
• Disengagement
• Disinterestedness
• Empowerment
• Informed Consent
• Insider/Outsider Status
• Intersubjectivity
• Key Informant
• Marginalized Populations
• Member Check
• Over-Rapport
• Participant
• Participants as Co-Researchers
• Reciprocity
• Researcher–Participant Relationships
• Secondary Participants
• Virtual Community
• Vulnerability
• Generalizability
• Objectivity
• Probability Sampling
• Quantitative Research
• Reductionism
• Reliability
• Replication
• Ethics Review Process
• Project Management
• Qualitative Research Summer Intensive
• Research Design
• Theoretical Frameworks
• Thinking Qualitatively Workshop Conference
• Accountability
• Authenticity
• Ethics and New Media
• Ethics Codes
• Institutional Review Boards
• Integrity in Qualitative Research
• Relational Ethics
• Sensitive Topics
• Audit Trail
• Confirmability
• Credibility
• Dependability
• Inter- and Intracoder Reliability
• Observer Bias
• Subjectivity
• Transferability
• Translatability
• Transparency
• Trustworthiness
• Verification
• Discursive Psychology
• Chaos and Complexity Theories
• Constructivism
• Critical Humanism
• Critical Pragmatism
• Critical Race Theory
• Critical Realism
• Critical Theory
• Deconstruction
• Epistemology
• Essentialism
• Existentialism
• Feminist Epistemology
• Grand Narrative
• Grand Theory
• Nonessentialism
• Objectivism
• Postcolonialism
• Postmodernism
• Postpositivism
• Postrepresentation
• Poststructuralism
• Queer Theory
• Reality and Multiple Realities
• Representation
• Social Constructionism
• Structuralism
• Subjectivism
• Symbolic Interactionism

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day free trial, more like this, sage recommends.

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

• Sign in/register

Navigating away from this page will delete your results

Please save your results to "My Self-Assessments" in your profile before navigating away from this page.

Sign in to my profile

Please sign into your institution before accessing your profile

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources have to offer.

You must have a valid academic email address to sign up.

Get off-campus access

• View or download all content my institution has access to.

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources has to offer.

• view my profile
• view my lists

An official website of the United States government

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.

• Publications
• Account settings
• 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

Birgitte Nørgaard

Eva draborg, carsten bogh juhl, jennifer yost, klara brunnhuber, karen a robinson.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: [email protected]

Received 2022 Jan 24; Accepted 2022 Oct 18; Collection date 2022.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

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.

Table 1. Risk of bias tool.

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 .

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

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 .

Table 2. Characteristics of the included meta–research studies (N = 21).

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 .

Table 3. Risk of bias of the included meta–research studies N = 21.

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%.

Fig 2. Forest plot.

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

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.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

• 1. Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ 2016; 355: 1–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5440 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: Who’s listening? Lancet 2016; 387: 1573–1586. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00307-4 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Association WM. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jama 2013; 310: 2191–2194. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Robinson KA, Brunnhuber K, Ciliska D, et al. Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 1: What Evidence-Based Research is and why is it important? J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 129: 151–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.020 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, et al. Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 2: Using an Evidence-Based Research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 129: 158–166. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.019 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, et al. Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 3: Using an Evidence-Based Research approach to place your results into context after the study is performed to ensure usefulness of the conclusion. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 129: 167–171. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.021 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Evidence Synthesis International, https://evidencesynthesis.org/ .
• 8. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Med ; 7. Epub ahead of print 2010. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Ioannidis JPA. Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLoS Biol 2018; 16: 1–6. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I. Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: A status report. J R Soc Med 2007; 100: 187–190. doi: 10.1177/014107680710011415 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Chow JTY, Lam K, Naeem A, et al. The pathway to RCTs: How many roads are there? Examining the homogeneity of RCT justification. Trials 2017; 18: 1–7. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Créquit P, Trinquart L, Yavchitz A, et al. Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: The example of lung cancer. BMC Med ; 14. Epub ahead of print 2016. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0555-0 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ ; 372. Epub ahead of print 2021. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Nørgaard B, Draborg E, Andreasen J, et al. Systematic reviews are rarely used to inform study design—a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 145: 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.007 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Cochrane. No Title. Cochrane Handbook, https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-i .
• 16. Ker K, Roberts I. Exploring redundant research into the effect of tranexamic acid on surgical bleeding: Further analysis of a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2015; 5: 1–7. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009460 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 17. Joseph PD, Caldwell PHY, Barnes EH, et al. Completeness of protocols for clinical trials in children submitted to ethics committees. J Paediatr Child Health 2019; 55: 291–298. doi: 10.1111/jpc.14189 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 18. Goudie AC, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 983–991. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.022 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Bolland MJ, Grey A, Avenell A. Assessment of research waste part 2: Wrong study populations- an exemplar of baseline vitamin D status of participants in trials of vitamin D supplementation. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18: 1–10. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Chapman SJ, Aldaffaa M, Downey CL, et al. Research waste in surgical randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg 2019; 106: 1464–1471. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11266 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Johnson AL, Walters C, Gray H, et al. The use of systematic reviews to justify orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trials: A cross-sectional analysis. Injury 2020; 51: 212–217. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.004 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Rauh S, Nigro T, Sims M, et al. The use of systematic reviews to justify randomized controlled trials in obstetrics & gynecology publications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 252: 627–628. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Seehra J, Liu C, Pandis N. Citation of prior systematic reviews in reports of randomized controlled trials published in dental speciality journals. J Dent 2021; 109: 103658. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103658 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Shepard S, Wise A, Johnson BS, et al. Are randomized controlled trials in urology being conducted with justification? J Osteopath Med. Epub ahead of print 2021. doi: 10.1515/jom-2021-0078 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Torgerson T, Evans S, Johnson BS, et al. The use of systematic reviews to justify phase III ophthalmology trials: an analysis. Eye 2020; 34: 2041–2047. doi: 10.1038/s41433-020-0771-x [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I. Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet 2010; 376: 20–21. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61045-8 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 27. Walters C, Torgerson T, Fladie I, et al. Are randomized controlled trials being conducted with the right justification? J Evid Based Med 2020; 13: 181–182. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12405 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Clarke M, Hopewell S. Many reports of randomised trials still don’t begin or end with a systematic review of the relevant evidence. J Bahrain Med Soc 2013; 24: 145–148. [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Clayton GL, Smith IL, Higgins JPT, et al. The INVEST project: Investigating the use of evidence synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Trials 2017; 18: 1–11. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Hoderlein X, Moseley AM, Elkins MR. Citation of prior research has increased in introduction and discussion sections with time: A survey of clinical trials in physiotherapy. Clin Trials 2017; 14: 372–380. doi: 10.1177/1740774517699821 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 31. Engelking A, Cavar M, Puljak L. The use of systematic reviews to justify anaesthesiology trials: A meta-epidemiological study. Eur J Pain (United Kingdom) 2018; 22: 1844–1849. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1280 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 32. De Meulemeester J, Fedyk M, Jurkovic L, et al. Many randomized clinical trials may not be justified: a cross-sectional analysis of the ethics and science of randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 97: 20–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.027 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 33. Helfer B, Prosser A, Samara MT, et al. Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: A systematic examination. BMC Med 2015; 13: 1–8. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 34. Rosenthal R, Bucher HC, Dwan K. The use of systematic reviews when designing and reporting surgical trials. Ann Surg 2017; 265: e35–e36. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001092 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 35. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009; 374: 86–89. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 36. Https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/01/14/paul-glasziou-and-iain-chalmers-is-85-of-health-research-really-wasted/ ). No Title.
• 37. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 834–840. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.005 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 38. Ioannidis JPA. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q 2016; 94: 485–514. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 39. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JPA. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: Survey of published studies. BMJ 2013; 347: 1–11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4501 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 40. Sigurdson MK, Khoury MJ, Ioannidis JPA. Redundant meta-analyses are common in genetic epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 127: 40–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.05.035 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 41. Riaz I Bin Khan MS, Riaz H, et al. Disorganized Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: Time to Systematize the Conduct and Publication of These Study Overviews? Am J Med 2016; 129: 339.e11–339.e18. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 42. Joyce J, Rabe-Hesketh S, Wessely S. Reviewing the reviews. The example of chronic fatigue syndrome. J Am Med Assoc 1998; 280: 264–266. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 43. Misemer BS, Platts-Mills TF, Jones CW. Citation bias favoring positive clinical trials of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke: A cross-sectional analysis. Trials 2016; 17: 1–7. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Decision Letter 0

Andrzej grzybowski, 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  [email protected] . 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,

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  [email protected] . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Collection date 2022.

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  [email protected] . 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 [email protected] .

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 [email protected] .

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 [email protected] .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at [email protected] .

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

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrzej Grzybowski

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data availability statement.

• View on publisher site
• PDF (1.2 MB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections