Researchers are increasingly expected to draw policy implications from their research, yet this can be distracting or misleading when describing single studies. Rather than helping ensure that research benefits society, it may distort research and evidence-based policy. This is propelled by incentives such as career structures increasingly favoring evidence of ‘impact’ and a need to appeal to competitive publication and funding decisions. We discuss this issue, use an example from the health inequality literature to highlight the complications of drawing policy conclusions, and consider options to improve both research and evidence-based policy making.
The incentive structures in science are problematic. Fraud cases are numerous, results are often overhyped and major research papers across many fields are not reproducible. In some ways the problems appear to be getting worse. Recent work has found the use of ‘hype’ or positive language has increased across time in scientific articles and funded grant applications.
}, year = {2023}, journal = {International Journal of Epidemiology}, volume = {53}, publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)}, issn = {0300-5771, 1464-3685}, doi = {10.1093/ije/dyad181}, language = {Eng}, }