{"id":1279,"date":"2016-07-29T15:22:53","date_gmt":"2016-07-29T15:22:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/7-major-problems-science-is-facing-a-survey-overview\/"},"modified":"2026-03-13T10:54:12","modified_gmt":"2026-03-13T05:24:12","slug":"7-major-problems-science-is-facing-a-survey-overview","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/7-major-problems-science-is-facing-a-survey-overview","title":{"rendered":"7 Major problems science is facing: A survey overview"},"content":{"rendered":"

The pace of scientific progress is quickening with researchers publishing important discoveries every day. However, the science community has been highlighting the fact that modern science is afflicted with several problems that threaten to ruin its very fabric. To understand what the larger scientific community perceives to be problems, Vox<\/a> \u2013 an American news website that publishes discussions on world affairs, science, politics, etc. \u2013 conducted a survey<\/a> involving 270 researchers. The respondents included graduate students, senior professors, Fields Medalists, and laboratory heads from all over the globe. All the respondents unanimously opined that the current scientific process is \u201criddled with conflict\u201d and that they are forced to \u201cprioritize self-preservation over pursuing the best questions and uncovering meaningful truths.\u201d Through the responses of these research professionals, it emerged that there were seven problems that science was facing:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0<\/strong>Financial crunch in academia<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Researchers face perpetual struggle to secure and sustain funding. While the scientific workforce is increasing, the funding in most countries has been on a decline over the past decade. The situation is particularly perilous for early career researchers who find it hard to compete for funds with senior researchers. This extreme competition is also impacting the way science is conducted<\/a>. The respondents of the Vox survey pointed out that since most grants are allotted only for a couple of years, researchers tend to opt for short-term projects, which can sometimes be insufficient to study complex research questions. This means researchers make choices based on what would keep the funding bodies and their institutions happy. However, the consequences of these choices are an increasing number of published papers with sub-standard quality and low research impact. <\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0<\/strong>Poor study design in published papers<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Poorly designed studies have become a major concern for academia. One of the primary reasons behind this problem is that statistical flaws in published research often go undetected. Since breakthrough results are valued the most, researchers feel compelled to hype their results in order to get published. Moreover, they tend to focus on particular patterns in data and manipulate their study designs to make the results more attractive for the journals. Instances of \u201cp-hacking\u201d in which researchers report only those hypotheses that end in statistically significant results are also on a rise. In particular, biomedical studies have come under the spotlight<\/a> for misusing p-values. Thus, a huge chunk of published results are scientifically insignificant, which also means a routine waste of money and resources. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

More time, more options, more opportunities, and more success<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

Explore Researcher.Life now!<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

3.\u00a0<\/strong>Lack of replication studies<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The inability to reproduce and replicate results is a major problem plaguing research. Recently, Nature<\/em> published the results of a survey that attempted to understand researchers\u2019 views on reproducibility and reported that a majority of participants believed the \u201ccrisis of reproducibility\u201d is real<\/a>. Inherent problems in studies also hinder replication, such as inadequate data and complicated study design. However, major stakeholders of science are in general skeptical about pursuing replication studies<\/a>. Most journals prefer publishing original and groundbreaking results because replication studies lack novelty<\/a>. Researchers and funding bodies are reluctant to invest their resources in replication studies on similar grounds. This is a major loss to academia since results of most experiments are never validated and tested.<\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0<\/strong>Problems with peer review<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Although peer review is often considered the backbone of scientific publishing, it is not without problems<\/a>. Peer reviewers help in weeding out bad research and ensuring that a manuscript does not have any obvious flaws. However, because it is not an incentivized task, reviewers have been known to delay their work or provide unhelpful reviews. Moreover, authors regularly report facing reviewer bullying wherein reviewers force authors to conduct additional experiments<\/a>, cite certain papers, make unnecessary changes, and so on. Most journals opt for single-blind peer review, which leaves room for biases and professional jealousy to creep in. Apart from this, the excessive dependence on the peer review system has led authors, editors, and third-party services to take advantage of it leading to peer review scams<\/a>. As a result, the peer review system in its present form is questioned by many academics. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Get trained by expert peer reviewers to become an effective peer reviewer with this course: How to become a great peer reviewer! (Basic and Advanced training)<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

5.\u00a0<\/strong>The problem of research accessibility<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Academia is gradually moving towards open science and open access by signing open data mandates<\/a> and making data sharing mandatory<\/a>. However, there are many big publishers that operate their journals on subscription-based models. Paying for paywalled research is becoming difficult for researchers as well as institutions, particularly in the developing countries, due to the ever-increasing subscription fees. Many of the Vox survey respondents were critical of this as it affects the way scientific research is disseminated. Moreover, subscription-based publishing model is probably the single most important factor responsible for the foundation of Sci-Hub<\/a>, a website that provides unauthorized access to almost all paywalled research papers. The only way of avoiding such consequences is developing methods to make access to research easier for the science community.<\/span><\/p>\n

6.\u00a0<\/strong>Lack of adequate and accurate science communication<\/strong><\/h2>\n

It is a well-known fact that a wide communication gap exists between the scientific and the non-scientific community. This has resulted in miscommunication of science, divided opinions about scientific matters, and lack of informed decision-making among the public. Researchers are partly responsible for this because they lack time or sometimes the inclination to engage with the public<\/a> about their research work. Therefore, the public is largely dependent on the media, which is often blamed for misconstruing scientific facts<\/a>. The competitive nature of academic research is also responsible for poor communication of research. In an attempt to grab attention, sometimes researchers, universities, and even journals mislead the public<\/a> by hyping the results or promoting only positive results. However, the science community should take the responsibility of projecting an accurate picture of science to the public since so that they can become cognizant of scientific issues and have a say in the way their tax money is invested in research. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n