Research That Is Not Published Is Not Worth Doing

Abstract

This editorial assertsthat unpublished research undermines scholarly inquiry, emphasizing that publication is a moral and institutional obligation. It highlights the negative consequences of non-publication, such as wasted resources, ethical violations, and risks to public health. The piece asserts that "research that is not published is not worth doing," stressing the ethical duty to participants and funders. It reviews empirical evidence on the impact of non-publication, addresses the challenges of unpublished research, and proposes reforms, such as mandatory registration, reporting of results, and data sharing.

‘Science is not finished until it’s communicated’.

—Sir Mark Walport (2013)

In 2005, I completed my postgraduate studies in psychiatry, focusing my thesis on psychiatric issues associated with HIV/AIDS. Throughout my research journey, I encountered several challenges, including obtaining the necessary permissions, ensuring informed consent, addressing privacy concerns, and collecting data effectively. Despite these hurdles, my work was successfully finalized and accepted, and I passed the exams. I had the opportunity to present my findings at a renowned international conference. I have always intended to publish my study, as the findings were significant and relevant during that period. However, I procrastinated because of my career and other distractions (excuses to avoid responsibility). A few years ago, I reached out to editors, only to be told that my data was now outdated. Additionally, the research instrument that I used was initially free for academic, non-funded research. It is now copyrighted and requires payment even for academic research, hindering my ability to publish.

As a result, my thesis is now artfully nestled in a closet at home and displayed in the department library, serving little purpose other than providing insight for future postgraduates on how to conduct similar studies. It is a shining example of neglect, accumulating dust as a testament to inactivity. What a way to make something completely useless.

Scientific research aims to advance knowledge and benefit society. However, a key debate exists: Does research have value if it remains unpublished and confined to individual organizations or academic departments? The claim that “research that is not published is not worth doing” challenges the purpose of scientific inquiry. This editorial argues in favor of this claim, emphasizing that publication and dissemination are vital for meaningful, impactful, and ethical research. It examines the negative consequences of unpublished research and presents a critical perspective in academia and policy today. In an era of open science and evidence-based policymaking, publishing research is essential. This editorial argues that unpublished research breaches scholarly responsibility, undermines public trust, and fails to make a meaningful contribution to knowledge. It prompts a discussion on whether the statement “research that is not published is not worth doing” represents dichotomous thinking. I argue it does not. Science is fundamentally a conversation, not a private diary. Therefore, research that remains unpublished, meaning it is not publicly accessible or discoverable, lacks practical, ethical, and epistemic value, making it unworthy of pursuit.

This editorial draws upon my experiences as a student, educator, researcher, and author, as well as my interactions with numerous colleagues in the field. I am confident that I am not alone in these reflections; many others undoubtedly share similar narratives.

Discussion

The primary objective for many students is to pass their examinations successfully. Unfortunately, research has often been reduced to a mere requirement for course completion, referred to as “part-fulfillment.” Even the most exceptional students, upon completing their examinations, frequently become preoccupied with various commitments such as clinical practice, financial responsibilities, and family obligations. These factors inhibit their ability to publish their theses, as the pursuit of research and publication does not appear to be as financially rewarding as other priorities.

Several researchers demonstrate an appreciation for the publication of “negative” results; however, they often refrain from publishing such outcomes related to their own data. ¹ Numerous studies have indicated that a substantial proportion of unpublished research is never submitted to journals.^2–6

Why Do Researchers Not Publish

In 1998, Weber et al., ⁷ wondered, “Why do investigators fail to publish?” They studied researchers who presented their findings at conferences but did not subsequently publish the results. A variety of factors contributed to this situation, with the predominant reason being identified as “lack of time” (74%). The subsequent reasons, ranked by frequency, included the perceived unlikelihood of acceptance by journals, findings considered insufficiently significant, challenges in collaboration with coauthors, a perceived lack of value in the effort expended, the presence of competing papers with similar outcomes, unfavorable statistical analyses, and other unspecified factors. The authors emphasized that the failure to publish completed research can significantly impact medical practice, and urged societies to encourage all investigators to pursue publication.

The reasons stated above may also apply to research findings that were never presented at a scientific meeting.

Even two decades later, in the year 2025, it is anticipated that the situation will not have undergone significant change.

Berendt et al. (2017), ⁸ highlighted the challenges in publishing academic drug trials approved by the Danish Medicines Agency. Their survey of trial sponsors achieved a 77% response rate from 181 trials, with a follow-up period ranging from 5.1 to 7.9 years. Of these, 73% were Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), with initiation and completion rates of 92% and 93%, respectively. The publication rate for completed trials was 73%, with RCTs published more quickly than non-randomized trials. Analysis of 20 unpublished trials revealed that reasons for non-publication included ongoing data analysis, manuscript preparation, and time constraints. The authors recommended that research organizations and funding agencies enforce the mandatory publication of trial results within a set timeframe after completion.

Grover and Dalton (2020), ⁹ found that only 27% of the abstracts presented at an Indian scientific conference were subsequently published within five years. In contrast, research that received awards exhibited a significantly higher publication rate of 69.6%. The authors emphasized the importance of developing strategies to improve the transition from abstract submissions to full-text manuscripts.

A recent Cochrane review (2024), ¹⁰ found that only about 50% of clinical trials are published. Studies more likely to be published were those with positive outcomes, large sample sizes, and that had funding from non-industry sources. The authors suggested that low publication rates can lead to publication bias and time-lag bias, which can affect research findings and treatment decisions. Hence, to reduce publication bias, all clinical trial results should be shared, and the decision to publish should be unaffected by the nature of the results.

Why Should Researchers Publish

Underreporting of research poses a significant risk to clinical practice and patient outcomes. Addressing this issue is essential for improving healthcare integrity and effectiveness.

The Purpose of Research: Contribution, Not Restriction

Research serves as a vital public good, enhancing our understanding of complex issues and fostering innovation through intellectual discourse. ¹¹ However, unpublished studies, no matter how rigorous, remain unseen by peers, practitioners, and policymakers. The academic ecosystem relies on citation, critique, and collaboration, all of which depend on visibility. ¹²

Ethical Principles: Transparency and Accountability

Ethical research requires transparency in methodology, findings, and study limitations. ¹³ The failure to publish can hide unfavorable outcomes, leading to publication bias and distorted meta-analyses. ¹⁴ Researchers must refrain from subjecting individuals to potential risks unless there exists a foreseeable social or scientific benefit. ¹⁵ The participants provide their consent to partake in a study with the expectation that the findings may offer advantages for both themselves and society at large. Funding agencies support research initiatives, while the Ethics Committee endorses the research protocol and expects researchers to disseminate their findings for the advancement of both society and the scientific community. Not publishing results violates this trust.

Wasted Resources and Redundant Processes

Many billions are invested each year in research that ultimately does not get published. ¹⁶ Failure to publish the study findings contributes to duplication of efforts, inefficiency, and a halt in innovation. Additionally, systematic reviews may encounter challenges due to the lack of sufficient data resulting from unpublished studies. Inadequate reporting hinders understanding of RCTs and can lead to unethical behavior when biased findings gain undue credibility. ¹⁷ Table 1 outlines the financial and societal implications associated with research,^18–23 highlighting the potential detrimental effects of unpublished studies.

Table 1.

Economic and Social Costs of Unpublished Research.

Cost Classification	Narrative	Repercussion
Financial waste	Financial resources dedicated to research that is never published.	The reduction in grants and public as well as philanthropic funding results in the absence of societal benefits.
Repetitive research	Investigators who are not informed of previous unpublished findings conduct the same studies.	Repetition of research, rising expenses, and lack of efficiency.
Ethical dilemma	The studies that include human participants and animals are not published.	Increased exposure to unnecessary risks leads to a diminished willingness to participate in studies.
Trade-off	The opportunity to utilize data for critical social, scientific, or clinical decisions is missed.	Inadequate advancements, delayed therapeutic interventions, and poorly informed policy frameworks.
Intellectual inertia	Insufficient input to the worldwide pool of knowledge.	Inability to progress in scientific research, “reinventing the wheel.”

The Significance of Peer Review and Academic Discussion

Peer review serves not merely as a filtering system, but it is a process of improvement. If research remains unpublished, it loses the chance for evaluation, enhancement, and incorporation into broader discussions. ²⁴ Open Access publication is essential for scholarly publishing, providing benefits to academics, the economy, and society, though concerns exist about costs and regulation. ²⁵ However, open access journals with no APCs, repositories, and preprint servers provide various pathways for sharing research, lowering obstacles to participation.

Global Equity and Inclusion Initiatives

Unpublished research has a significant influence on scholars from underrepresented geographical areas and specialized disciplines. ²⁶ Publishing provides exposure, opportunities for collaboration, and funding options for underrepresented voices. Open access platforms have made it easier than ever to share information, allowing for a more equitable approach to publication. ²⁷

Scientists Hold an Obligation to Disseminate Their Findings

Saad ²⁸ expresses concern that without publication, progress in understanding will be suppressed or might even come to a complete standstill. He delineates the numerous advantages associated with publishing.

Disseminating Research Enhances Understanding and Benefits Society as a Whole

Some argue that publication is unnecessary and stress product development, while others believe only groundbreaking research should be published. However, even non-groundbreaking studies contribute to progress and advance disciplines.

Research Findings Can Only Be Valuable If Others Can Replicate Them

Without published research findings, replication is fundamentally unfeasible.

Secure Financial Support and Partnership Opportunities

Publishing promising studies attracts funders and boosts credibility through a solid citation record. A good publication record reflects productivity and quality contributions, while sharing research fosters collaboration and interdisciplinary partnerships to address complex issues.

Encourage and Educate Learners

The publication process enhances students’ writing, critical analysis, and feedback skills, which are essential for their academic and professional development. It motivates them for future coursework.

Establish a Professional and Organizational Reputation

Academic careers, particularly for faculty, rely on scholarly contributions to establish authority. Publications are crucial for building professional identities and credibility as leaders, fostering knowledge and innovation to advance science and society, and improving the global quality of life.

Serendipity

Yaqub, ²⁹ examines serendipity, a phenomenon wherein researchers may inadvertently discover unexpected and beneficial findings. These findings have the potential to provide significant contributions to both society and the field of science.

Types of Serendipity

Walpolian: Findings uncovered during the pursuit of an entirely different objective.

Mertonian: Findings that address a different issue than the one initially aimed for.

Bushian (or browsing): Outcomes that result from informal exploration or unstructured inquiry.

Stephanian (curiosity-driven): Explorations driven by genuine inquiry that have been operationalized or applied in practical contexts.

Mechanisms of Serendipity

Theory-led: Grounded in theoretical frameworks or established assumptions.

Observer-led: Inspired by the individual’s enhanced cognitive awareness or perceptual insight.

Error-borne: Arising from methodological errors or unexpected anomalies during the research process.

Network-emergent: Emanating from collaborative ventures, strategic dialogues, or networking interactions.

Dissemination of Research Findings: Contrasting Perspectives and Reactions

Argument: Some research projects are still in the exploratory phase and not yet ready for publication.

Rebuttal: Even exploratory research can be shared as preliminary findings, hypothetical interpretations, or empirical observations. ³⁰

Argument: The demands of the publication process distort research priorities.

Rebuttal: Ioannidis, ³¹ posits that, particularly in instances involving small studies, low pre-study probabilities, and design flexibility, published research findings are more likely to be erroneous than accurate. However, the solution should focus on adjusting incentives instead of eliminating information dissemination.

Argument: Some findings are too sensitive to share with the public.

Rebuttal: Ethical review boards and embargo protocols are established to manage these scenarios with a high degree of responsibility and rigor. ³²

Argument: Releasing all data could clutter literature with poor research, while journals aim to protect scientific discourse from irrelevant information.

Rebuttal: Instead of stopping publication of completed studies, we should promote clear reporting standards and robust peer evaluation. Registered reports address this by evaluating methods before data collection and ensuring publication regardless of outcomes, thus reducing result-based bias. ³³

Argument: Some individuals cite confidentiality concerns, particularly in industry-funded drug development, as reasons for limiting disclosures.

Rebuttal: While protecting intellectual property can be justified temporarily, it should not be used to perpetuate ongoing secrecy about safety and effectiveness, especially when public health is at stake. Regulatory frameworks can balance commercial confidentiality with public good by requiring summary result reporting to registries while allowing for limited technical detail embargoes.

Sovacool, ³⁴ has established specific principles that support the framework of academic publishing (Table 2).

Table 2.

Five Principles in Favor of Academic Publishing.

Principle	Description
Responsibility	Acknowledging our privileged position as researchers in society, and giving back to the community
Advancement	Contributing to the advancement and progression of science and engaging in a global dialogue
Serendipity	Recognizing the deep uncertainty of future research needs, and not prejudging the value or worth of a given research product developed through a robust and transparent process
Mentoring	Guiding others, especially students and early-career researchers, on how to publish
Personal growth	Promoting my own growth and improvement as a scholar, writer, and researcher

Reproduced with permission from Sovacool (2023). ³⁴

To honor the significance and elegance of Sovacool’s (2023) assertion, ³⁴ I wish to maintain its original phrasing steadfastly,

Why do I spend so much of my life writing and publishing papers? The answer, for me, lies in the five principles of responsibility, advancement, serendipity, mentoring, and personal growth, which span notions of privilege, contributing to the wider body of knowledge, hedging the future, capacity building, and self-improvement. They collectively push me to err on the side of engagement and dialogue, ergo to err on the side of submitting or publishing research rather than not publishing it.

Sovacool ³⁴ also said, (a) Publish promptly as unforeseen circumstances may require you to exit academia; (b) Submit your work early as peer review can take time; (c) Own and document your ideas; (d) Engage in scientific discussions and advance knowledge; and (e) Embrace feedback, as in the worst scenario, you receive invaluable critical remarks for free, while in the best scenario, your work is published.

Implications for Institutional Frameworks and Policy Development

• Educational institutions and funding bodies should mandate the dissemination of research findings as a prerequisite for the formal completion of such research projects.

• Evaluation metrics should prioritize transparency, reproducibility, and societal impact, moving beyond a narrow emphasis on publication in high-impact journals. ³⁵

• Establishing national data repositories and implementing mandates for data sharing can ensure that even negative findings are accessible and contribute to the broader scientific discourse. ³⁶

• Chalmers, ³⁷ noted that many clinical trials are unpublished or insufficiently detailed, resulting in poor treatment decisions and potential misconduct. Researchers, ethics committees, and funding organizations can help address this issue. He proposed greater adoption of prospective registration of trials from the beginning to support these initiatives.

The dissemination of research is crucial for both faculty and graduate students, as its ramifications extend well beyond individual career trajectories. Effective sharing of findings fosters the advancement of the academic community, enhances institutional reputation, and contributes to societal progress. ²⁸

Publication should not be seen as the ultimate goal for researchers, but as a foundational step toward making more significant contributions to the field. The primary goal of research is not just to discover new information but also to share, validate, and synthesize findings that enhance scientific knowledge and benefit society. ³⁸

Unpublished research does not achieve this aim, as it lacks visibility and fails to contribute to collective progress. Publishing research is crucial for sharing knowledge, enhancing quality evaluation, and advancing society. It impacts careers, informs policy, and influences global welfare. However, selective reporting and hiding negative results can distort understanding and hinder progress. Promoting transparent publication practices is essential for maintaining scientific integrity and fostering dialogue within the scientific community.

The National Medical Commission in New Delhi, India, has implemented a requirement for research publication as a prerequisite for faculty appointments and promotions, ³⁹ as well as for undertaking postgraduate courses. ⁴⁰ Consequently, there has been a notable increase in interest among professionals in publishing research. ⁴¹

A Word of Caution

I am not suggesting that every piece of nonsensical work should be published at any cost. Many research projects, once submitted to a journal and subjected to peer review, may not meet the standards for a quality publication, leading to their rejection. However, this often spurs a renewed effort to enhance the research with greater novelty or improved methodology. At the very least, an attempt to publish should be made.

Conclusions

Thus, research lacking publication holds limited value, not because every finding will inevitably yield significant impact, but rather because disseminated research has the capacity to influence the broader scientific community and society at large. Conducting research without disseminating findings is analogous to speaking to oneself in an empty room; it erodes the foundations of scientific inquiry, societal progress, and individual development. Publishing research transcends mere professional accomplishment; it constitutes the ethical culmination of the research endeavor. Researchers should make their findings publicly available whenever feasible. Failing to disseminate results undermines scientific and ethical obligations, unless they can justify and document non-disclosure. By endorsing the axiom that “research that is not published is not worth doing,” these editorial calls for a paradigm shift: Moving from a culture of confidentiality to one of openness, from an atmosphere of secrecy to a commitment to sharing, and from a focus on prestige to one centered around substantive contribution.