Currently, various research groups are dedicated to conducting systematic reviews, as they are considered original works. But could a lab survive solely on them in a country with competitive science?

Question

Systematic reviews

Nicholas · Answer

No, systematic review may not be relevant in the absence of clinical trials.

carlos marcelo scavuzzo · Answer

NO.

Dr. Taj Mohammad · Answer

No

Dr. Asif Mahmood · Answer

No

Bhoj R Singh · Answer

No, but I know several so-called renowned peers and scientists who built their long careers on reviewing work only and they are successful even after retirement. And now meta-analytical research is a kind of systematic review followed by analysis and is coming in a big way several labs are sustaining on meta-analytical research.

Kamit · Answer

Many research groups conduct systematic review analyses, but a major issue is related to funding. Publishing a paper in a high-impact journal can increase its citations. However, in reality, review articles do not play a significant role in securing funds for the lab.

Dr. Ashutosh Srivastava · Answer

No..original research is must in science..

Trudy · Answer

I would argue that it is possible. I'm affiliated with a meta-research group focussing on systematic reviews and on 'research on research', methods, open science, etc. This approach can work if you provide expertise in the latest methods and develop new methods for SRs.  You'll of course need a good network of collaborators with knowledge and data in the specific fields where you apply these methods, and such collaborations would also be crucial for securing funding. It may be similar to a statistics research group, with specific methodological expertise but also relying on other research groups for the application.

ESG · Answer

Systematic reviews hold a significant place in the scientific literature and are considered original research. However, it is not feasible for a research laboratory to sustain itself solely by focusing on them. Scientific progress is typically achieved through experimental research, which allows for testing hypotheses, discovering new findings, and gaining a deeper understanding of existing knowledge. Therefore, in a competitive scientific environment, it is critical for research laboratories to focus on and support experimental studies on a solid foundation.

HanaaGazwi · Answer

In a country with highly competitive science, it may be challenging for a lab to survive and thrive if it relies solely on conducting systematic reviews without engaging in experimental or applied research. Here are some key points to consider:

1. **Research Performance Evaluation:**
   - Research performance is typically assessed based on the diversity and quality of research activities. While systematic reviews are valuable and considered original works, they may not be sufficient alone to secure sustainable funding and institutional support.

2. **Funding and Financial Support:**
   - Most funding agencies, whether governmental or private, tend to support research that includes experimental studies and practical applications, as these provide direct contributions to scientific knowledge and practical innovations.

3. **Contribution to Innovation:**
   - A lab focused solely on systematic reviews may be seen as less innovative compared to those conducting original experimental research. Innovation often drives funding and recognition in competitive scientific environments.

4. **Collaborations and Networking:**
   - Engaging in a variety of research activities, including both systematic reviews and original research, can enhance a lab's reputation and lead to more collaborative opportunities with other researchers and institutions.

In summary, while systematic reviews are important and can significantly contribute to the scientific community, a lab's long-term survival and success in a competitive scientific landscape likely depend on a balanced approach that includes a mix of systematic reviews and experimental research.

DrFuatPolat · Answer

Systematic research alone is not enough within the scope of research. Original case reports, interesting scenarios, unexpected treatment responses and reactions, observational and retrospective studies should exist holistically. In addition, highly original biomarker and analysis methods can be developed in the laboratory.

Professor Robert D. Martin · Answer

Individuals or teams who generate systematic reviews (meta-analyses)  perform a valuable service for the research community. Moreover, effective meta-analyses demand an ever-increasing mastery of numerous skills that have become widely recognized as essential. However, systematic reviews — notably in epidemiology — commonly cover observational studies and cannot overcome the fundamental problem of distinguishing between mere correlation and confidently inferred causation. Reviews based solely on Randomized Control Trials — the recognized "gold standard" in epidemiological research, permitting an approximation to experimentation — are as yet relatively rare. In any case, confident recognition of causal connections requires carefully planned original research, so systematic reviews alone are not really sufficient in scientific practice.

Prof. Sunit Singhi · Answer

Unless there is data generated through new experimental studies , there is no likelihood of a systemic review.

Dr. Ildephonse Habinshuti, Ph.D. · Answer

Funding
• Limited Funding Opportunities: Many funding bodies prioritize research that generates new data. While systematic reviews are important, they may not attract the same level of funding as experimental research.
• Grants and Financial Support: Securing grants exclusively for systematic reviews could be difficult. Most grant agencies, including governmental and private institutions, often favor innovative experimental research.

Academic Recognition
• Reputation and Prestige: In academia, labs that produce original experimental data often receive more recognition. Systematic reviews are respected but might not be seen as groundbreaking in the same way.
• Publication Challenges: While high-impact journals do publish systematic reviews, the competition for space in these journals is fierce. Labs might need to demonstrate significant expertise and authority in their field to get published frequently.

Career Development
• Training and Skills: Researchers in a lab focused solely on systematic reviews might miss out on hands-on experimental skills, potentially limiting their career options in experimental sciences.
• Interdisciplinary Skills: Combining systematic reviews with experimental research could provide a more comprehensive training experience for researchers.

Currently, various research groups are dedicated to conducting systematic reviews, as they are considered original works. But could a lab survive solely on them in a country with competitive science?

ESG

carlos marcelo scavuzzo

Prof. Sunit Singhi

Trudy

Dr. Ashutosh Srivastava

Kamit

Bhoj R Singh

Dr. Asif Mahmood

Dr. Taj Mohammad

Nicholas

Post an Answer

Type

Status

Bounty

Created

Answer Count

Vote Count

Creator

Share Page

Copy URL to Clipboard

Currently, various research groups are dedicated to conducting systematic reviews, as they are considered original works. But could a lab survive solely on them in a country with competitive science?

ESG

carlos marcelo scavuzzo

Prof. Sunit Singhi

Trudy

Dr. Ashutosh Srivastava

Kamit

Bhoj R Singh

Dr. Asif Mahmood

Dr. Taj Mohammad

Nicholas

Post an Answer

Type

Status

Bounty

Created

Answer Count

Vote Count

Creator