Research methodology vs. research methods
The research methodology or design is the overall strategy and rationale that you used to carry out the research. Whereas, research methods are the specific tools and processes you use to gather and understand the data you need to test your hypothesis.
To further understand research methodology, let’s explore some examples of research methodology:
a. Qualitative research methodology example: A study exploring the impact of author branding on author popularity might utilize in-depth interviews to gather personal experiences and perspectives.
b. Quantitative research methodology example: A research project investigating the effects of a book promotion technique on book sales could employ a statistical analysis of profit margins and sales before and after the implementation of the method.
c. Mixed-Methods research methodology example: A study examining the relationship between social media use and academic performance might combine both qualitative and quantitative approaches. It could include surveys to quantitatively assess the frequency of social media usage and its correlation with grades, alongside focus groups or interviews to qualitatively explore students’ perceptions and experiences regarding how social media affects their study habits and academic engagement.
These examples highlight the meaning of methodology in research and how it guides the research process, from data collection to analysis, ensuring the study’s objectives are met efficiently.
When it comes to writing your study, the methodology in research papers or a dissertation plays a pivotal role. A well-crafted methodology section of a research paper or thesis not only enhances the credibility of your research but also provides a roadmap for others to replicate or build upon your work.
Wondering how to write the research methodology section? Follow these steps to create a strong methods chapter:
At the start of a research paper , you would have provided the background of your research and stated your hypothesis or research problem. In this section, you will elaborate on your research strategy.
Begin by restating your research question and proceed to explain what type of research you opted for to test it. Depending on your research, here are some questions you can consider:
a. Did you use qualitative or quantitative data to test the hypothesis?
b. Did you perform an experiment where you collected data or are you writing a dissertation that is descriptive/theoretical without data collection?
c. Did you use primary data that you collected or analyze secondary research data or existing data as part of your study?
These questions will help you establish the rationale for your study on a broader level, which you will follow by elaborating on the specific methods you used to collect and understand your data.
Now that you have told your reader what type of research you’ve undertaken for the dissertation, it’s time to dig into specifics. State what specific methods you used and explain the conditions and variables involved. Explain what the theoretical framework behind the method was, what samples you used for testing it, and what tools and materials you used to collect the data.
Once you have explained the data collection process, explain how you analyzed and studied the data. Here, your focus is simply to explain the methods of analysis rather than the results of the study.
Here are some questions you can answer at this stage:
a. What tools or software did you use to analyze your results?
b. What parameters or variables did you consider while understanding and studying the data you’ve collected?
c. Was your analysis based on a theoretical framework?
Your mode of analysis will change depending on whether you used a quantitative or qualitative research methodology in your study. If you’re working within the hard sciences or physical sciences, you are likely to use a quantitative research methodology (relying on numbers and hard data). If you’re doing a qualitative study, in the social sciences or humanities, your analysis may rely on understanding language and socio-political contexts around your topic. This is why it’s important to establish what kind of study you’re undertaking at the onset.
Now that you have gone through your research process in detail, you’ll also have to make a case for it. Justify your choice of methodology and methods, explaining why it is the best choice for your research question. This is especially important if you have chosen an unconventional approach or you’ve simply chosen to study an existing research problem from a different perspective. Compare it with other methodologies, especially ones attempted by previous researchers, and discuss what contributions using your methodology makes.
No matter how thorough a methodology is, it doesn’t come without its hurdles. This is a natural part of scientific research that is important to document so that your peers and future researchers are aware of it. Writing in a research paper about this aspect of your research process also tells your evaluator that you have actively worked to overcome the pitfalls that came your way and you have refined the research process.
1. Remember who you are writing for. Keeping sight of the reader/evaluator will help you know what to elaborate on and what information they are already likely to have. You’re condensing months’ work of research in just a few pages, so you should omit basic definitions and information about general phenomena people already know.
2. Do not give an overly elaborate explanation of every single condition in your study.
3. Skip details and findings irrelevant to the results.
4. Cite references that back your claim and choice of methodology.
5. Consistently emphasize the relationship between your research question and the methodology you adopted to study it.
To sum it up, what is methodology in research? It’s the blueprint of your research, essential for ensuring that your study is systematic, rigorous, and credible. Whether your focus is on qualitative research methodology, quantitative research methodology, or a combination of both, understanding and clearly defining your methodology is key to the success of your research.
Once you write the research methodology and complete writing the entire research paper, the next step is to edit your paper. As experts in research paper editing and proofreading services , we’d love to help you perfect your paper!
Here are some other articles that you might find useful:
What does research methodology mean, what types of research methodologies are there, what is qualitative research methodology, how to determine sample size in research methodology, what is action research methodology.
Found this article helpful?
This is very simplified and direct. Very helpful to understand the research methodology section of a dissertation
Leave a Comment: Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published.
Your organization needs a technical editor: here’s why, your guide to the best ebook readers in 2024, writing for the web: 7 expert tips for web content writing.
Subscribe to our Newsletter
Get carefully curated resources about writing, editing, and publishing in the comfort of your inbox.
How to Copyright Your Book?
If you’ve thought about copyrighting your book, you’re on the right path.
© 2024 All rights reserved
Research methodology 1,2 is a structured and scientific approach used to collect, analyze, and interpret quantitative or qualitative data to answer research questions or test hypotheses. A research methodology is like a plan for carrying out research and helps keep researchers on track by limiting the scope of the research. Several aspects must be considered before selecting an appropriate research methodology, such as research limitations and ethical concerns that may affect your research.
The research methodology section in a scientific paper describes the different methodological choices made, such as the data collection and analysis methods, and why these choices were selected. The reasons should explain why the methods chosen are the most appropriate to answer the research question. A good research methodology also helps ensure the reliability and validity of the research findings. There are three types of research methodology—quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method, which can be chosen based on the research objectives.
A research methodology describes the techniques and procedures used to identify and analyze information regarding a specific research topic. It is a process by which researchers design their study so that they can achieve their objectives using the selected research instruments. It includes all the important aspects of research, including research design, data collection methods, data analysis methods, and the overall framework within which the research is conducted. While these points can help you understand what is research methodology, you also need to know why it is important to pick the right methodology.
Having a good research methodology in place has the following advantages: 3
Types of research methodology.
There are three types of research methodology based on the type of research and the data required. 1
Sampling 4 is an important part of a research methodology and involves selecting a representative sample of the population to conduct the study, making statistical inferences about them, and estimating the characteristics of the whole population based on these inferences. There are two types of sampling designs in research methodology—probability and nonprobability.
In this type of sampling design, a sample is chosen from a larger population using some form of random selection, that is, every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. The different types of probability sampling are:
During research, data are collected using various methods depending on the research methodology being followed and the research methods being undertaken. Both qualitative and quantitative research have different data collection methods, as listed below.
Qualitative research 5
Quantitative research 6
What are data analysis methods.
The data collected using the various methods for qualitative and quantitative research need to be analyzed to generate meaningful conclusions. These data analysis methods 7 also differ between quantitative and qualitative research.
Quantitative research involves a deductive method for data analysis where hypotheses are developed at the beginning of the research and precise measurement is required. The methods include statistical analysis applications to analyze numerical data and are grouped into two categories—descriptive and inferential.
Descriptive analysis is used to describe the basic features of different types of data to present it in a way that ensures the patterns become meaningful. The different types of descriptive analysis methods are:
Inferential analysis is used to make predictions about a larger population based on the analysis of the data collected from a smaller population. This analysis is used to study the relationships between different variables. Some commonly used inferential data analysis methods are:
Qualitative research involves an inductive method for data analysis where hypotheses are developed after data collection. The methods include:
Here are some important factors to consider when choosing a research methodology: 8
How to write a research methodology .
A research methodology should include the following components: 3,9
The methods section is a critical part of the research papers, allowing researchers to use this to understand your findings and replicate your work when pursuing their own research. However, it is usually also the most difficult section to write. This is where Paperpal can help you overcome the writer’s block and create the first draft in minutes with Paperpal Copilot, its secure generative AI feature suite.
With Paperpal you can get research advice, write and refine your work, rephrase and verify the writing, and ensure submission readiness, all in one place. Here’s how you can use Paperpal to develop the first draft of your methods section.
You can repeat this process to develop each section of your research manuscript, including the title, abstract and keywords. Ready to write your research papers faster, better, and without the stress? Sign up for Paperpal and start writing today!
Q1. What are the key components of research methodology?
A1. A good research methodology has the following key components:
Q2. Why is ethical consideration important in research methodology?
A2. Ethical consideration is important in research methodology to ensure the readers of the reliability and validity of the study. Researchers must clearly mention the ethical norms and standards followed during the conduct of the research and also mention if the research has been cleared by any institutional board. The following 10 points are the important principles related to ethical considerations: 10
Q3. What is the difference between methodology and method?
A3. Research methodology is different from a research method, although both terms are often confused. Research methods are the tools used to gather data, while the research methodology provides a framework for how research is planned, conducted, and analyzed. The latter guides researchers in making decisions about the most appropriate methods for their research. Research methods refer to the specific techniques, procedures, and tools used by researchers to collect, analyze, and interpret data, for instance surveys, questionnaires, interviews, etc.
Research methodology is, thus, an integral part of a research study. It helps ensure that you stay on track to meet your research objectives and answer your research questions using the most appropriate data collection and analysis tools based on your research design.
Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.
Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.
Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!
Climatic vs. climactic: difference and examples, you may also like, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers....
Reference management. Clean and simple.
Why do you need a research methodology, what needs to be included, why do you need to document your research method, what are the different types of research instruments, qualitative / quantitative / mixed research methodologies, how do you choose the best research methodology for you, frequently asked questions about research methodology, related articles.
When you’re working on your first piece of academic research, there are many different things to focus on, and it can be overwhelming to stay on top of everything. This is especially true of budding or inexperienced researchers.
If you’ve never put together a research proposal before or find yourself in a position where you need to explain your research methodology decisions, there are a few things you need to be aware of.
Once you understand the ins and outs, handling academic research in the future will be less intimidating. We break down the basics below:
A research methodology encompasses the way in which you intend to carry out your research. This includes how you plan to tackle things like collection methods, statistical analysis, participant observations, and more.
You can think of your research methodology as being a formula. One part will be how you plan on putting your research into practice, and another will be why you feel this is the best way to approach it. Your research methodology is ultimately a methodological and systematic plan to resolve your research problem.
In short, you are explaining how you will take your idea and turn it into a study, which in turn will produce valid and reliable results that are in accordance with the aims and objectives of your research. This is true whether your paper plans to make use of qualitative methods or quantitative methods.
The purpose of a research methodology is to explain the reasoning behind your approach to your research - you'll need to support your collection methods, methods of analysis, and other key points of your work.
Think of it like writing a plan or an outline for you what you intend to do.
When carrying out research, it can be easy to go off-track or depart from your standard methodology.
Tip: Having a methodology keeps you accountable and on track with your original aims and objectives, and gives you a suitable and sound plan to keep your project manageable, smooth, and effective.
With all that said, how do you write out your standard approach to a research methodology?
As a general plan, your methodology should include the following information:
In any dissertation, thesis, or academic journal, you will always find a chapter dedicated to explaining the research methodology of the person who carried out the study, also referred to as the methodology section of the work.
A good research methodology will explain what you are going to do and why, while a poor methodology will lead to a messy or disorganized approach.
You should also be able to justify in this section your reasoning for why you intend to carry out your research in a particular way, especially if it might be a particularly unique method.
Having a sound methodology in place can also help you with the following:
A research instrument is a tool you will use to help you collect, measure and analyze the data you use as part of your research.
The choice of research instrument will usually be yours to make as the researcher and will be whichever best suits your methodology.
There are many different research instruments you can use in collecting data for your research.
Generally, they can be grouped as follows:
These are the most common ways of carrying out research, but it is really dependent on your needs as a researcher and what approach you think is best to take.
It is also possible to combine a number of research instruments if this is necessary and appropriate in answering your research problem.
There are three different types of methodologies, and they are distinguished by whether they focus on words, numbers, or both.
Data type | What is it? | Methodology |
---|---|---|
Quantitative | This methodology focuses more on measuring and testing numerical data. What is the aim of quantitative research? | Surveys, tests, existing databases. |
Qualitative | Qualitative research is a process of collecting and analyzing both words and textual data. | Observations, interviews, focus groups. |
Mixed-method | A mixed-method approach combines both of the above approaches. | Where you can use a mixed method of research, this can produce some incredibly interesting results. This is due to testing in a way that provides data that is both proven to be exact while also being exploratory at the same time. |
➡️ Want to learn more about the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and how to use both methods? Check out our guide for that!
If you've done your due diligence, you'll have an idea of which methodology approach is best suited to your research.
It’s likely that you will have carried out considerable reading and homework before you reach this point and you may have taken inspiration from other similar studies that have yielded good results.
Still, it is important to consider different options before setting your research in stone. Exploring different options available will help you to explain why the choice you ultimately make is preferable to other methods.
If proving your research problem requires you to gather large volumes of numerical data to test hypotheses, a quantitative research method is likely to provide you with the most usable results.
If instead you’re looking to try and learn more about people, and their perception of events, your methodology is more exploratory in nature and would therefore probably be better served using a qualitative research methodology.
It helps to always bring things back to the question: what do I want to achieve with my research?
Once you have conducted your research, you need to analyze it. Here are some helpful guides for qualitative data analysis:
➡️ How to do a content analysis
➡️ How to do a thematic analysis
➡️ How to do a rhetorical analysis
Research methodology refers to the techniques used to find and analyze information for a study, ensuring that the results are valid, reliable and that they address the research objective.
Data can typically be organized into four different categories or methods: observational, experimental, simulation, and derived.
Writing a methodology section is a process of introducing your methods and instruments, discussing your analysis, providing more background information, addressing your research limitations, and more.
Your research methodology section will need a clear research question and proposed research approach. You'll need to add a background, introduce your research question, write your methodology and add the works you cited during your data collecting phase.
The research methodology section of your study will indicate how valid your findings are and how well-informed your paper is. It also assists future researchers planning to use the same methodology, who want to cite your study or replicate it.
Detailed Walkthrough + Free Methodology Chapter Template
If you’re working on a dissertation or thesis and are looking for an example of a research methodology chapter , you’ve come to the right place.
In this video, we walk you through a research methodology from a dissertation that earned full distinction , step by step. We start off by discussing the core components of a research methodology by unpacking our free methodology chapter template . We then progress to the sample research methodology to show how these concepts are applied in an actual dissertation, thesis or research project.
If you’re currently working on your research methodology chapter, you may also find the following resources useful:
PS – If you’re working on a dissertation, be sure to also check out our collection of dissertation and thesis examples here .
Research methodology example: frequently asked questions, is the sample research methodology real.
Yes. The chapter example is an extract from a Master’s-level dissertation for an MBA program. A few minor edits have been made to protect the privacy of the sponsoring organisation, but these have no material impact on the research methodology.
As we discuss in the video, every research methodology will be different, depending on the research aims, objectives and research questions. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your literature review to suit your specific context.
You can learn more about the basics of writing a research methodology chapter here .
The best place to find more examples of methodology chapters would be within dissertation/thesis databases. These databases include dissertations, theses and research projects that have successfully passed the assessment criteria for the respective university, meaning that you have at least some sort of quality assurance.
The Open Access Thesis Database (OATD) is a good starting point.
You can access our free methodology chapter template here .
Yes. There is no cost for the template and you are free to use it as you wish.
Great insights you are sharing here…
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.
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.
Published on 25 February 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.
Your research methodology discusses and explains the data collection and analysis methods you used in your research. A key part of your thesis, dissertation, or research paper, the methodology chapter explains what you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and validity of your research.
It should include:
Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.
How to write a research methodology, why is a methods section important, step 1: explain your methodological approach, step 2: describe your data collection methods, step 3: describe your analysis method, step 4: evaluate and justify the methodological choices you made, tips for writing a strong methodology chapter, frequently asked questions about methodology.
Your methods section is your opportunity to share how you conducted your research and why you chose the methods you chose. It’s also the place to show that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated .
It gives your research legitimacy and situates it within your field, and also gives your readers a place to refer to if they have any questions or critiques in other sections.
You can start by introducing your overall approach to your research. You have two options here.
What research problem or question did you investigate?
And what type of data did you need to achieve this aim?
Depending on your discipline, you can also start with a discussion of the rationale and assumptions underpinning your methodology. In other words, why did you choose these methods for your study?
Once you have introduced your reader to your methodological approach, you should share full details about your data collection methods .
In order to be considered generalisable, you should describe quantitative research methods in enough detail for another researcher to replicate your study.
Here, explain how you operationalised your concepts and measured your variables. Discuss your sampling method or inclusion/exclusion criteria, as well as any tools, procedures, and materials you used to gather your data.
Surveys Describe where, when, and how the survey was conducted.
Experiments Share full details of the tools, techniques, and procedures you used to conduct your experiment.
Existing data Explain how you gathered and selected the material (such as datasets or archival data) that you used in your analysis.
The survey consisted of 5 multiple-choice questions and 10 questions measured on a 7-point Likert scale.
The goal was to collect survey responses from 350 customers visiting the fitness apparel company’s brick-and-mortar location in Boston on 4–8 July 2022, between 11:00 and 15:00.
Here, a customer was defined as a person who had purchased a product from the company on the day they took the survey. Participants were given 5 minutes to fill in the survey anonymously. In total, 408 customers responded, but not all surveys were fully completed. Due to this, 371 survey results were included in the analysis.
In qualitative research , methods are often more flexible and subjective. For this reason, it’s crucial to robustly explain the methodology choices you made.
Be sure to discuss the criteria you used to select your data, the context in which your research was conducted, and the role you played in collecting your data (e.g., were you an active participant, or a passive observer?)
Interviews or focus groups Describe where, when, and how the interviews were conducted.
Participant observation Describe where, when, and how you conducted the observation or ethnography .
Existing data Explain how you selected case study materials for your analysis.
In order to gain better insight into possibilities for future improvement of the fitness shop’s product range, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 returning customers.
Here, a returning customer was defined as someone who usually bought products at least twice a week from the store.
Surveys were used to select participants. Interviews were conducted in a small office next to the cash register and lasted approximately 20 minutes each. Answers were recorded by note-taking, and seven interviews were also filmed with consent. One interviewee preferred not to be filmed.
Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. If a standalone quantitative or qualitative study is insufficient to answer your research question, mixed methods may be a good fit for you.
Mixed methods are less common than standalone analyses, largely because they require a great deal of effort to pull off successfully. If you choose to pursue mixed methods, it’s especially important to robustly justify your methods here.
Next, you should indicate how you processed and analysed your data. Avoid going into too much detail: you should not start introducing or discussing any of your results at this stage.
In quantitative research , your analysis will be based on numbers. In your methods section, you can include:
In qualitative research, your analysis will be based on language, images, and observations (often involving some form of textual analysis ).
Specific methods might include:
Mixed methods combine the above two research methods, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches into one coherent analytical process.
Above all, your methodology section should clearly make the case for why you chose the methods you did. This is especially true if you did not take the most standard approach to your topic. In this case, discuss why other methods were not suitable for your objectives, and show how this approach contributes new knowledge or understanding.
In any case, it should be overwhelmingly clear to your reader that you set yourself up for success in terms of your methodology’s design. Show how your methods should lead to results that are valid and reliable, while leaving the analysis of the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results for your discussion section .
Remember that your aim is not just to describe your methods, but to show how and why you applied them. Again, it’s critical to demonstrate that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated.
The methodology section should clearly show why your methods suit your objectives and convince the reader that you chose the best possible approach to answering your problem statement and research questions .
Your methodology can be strengthened by referencing existing research in your field. This can help you to:
Consider how much information you need to give, and avoid getting too lengthy. If you are using methods that are standard for your discipline, you probably don’t need to give a lot of background or justification.
Regardless, your methodology should be a clear, well-structured text that makes an argument for your approach, not just a list of technical details and procedures.
Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research. Developing your methodology involves studying the research methods used in your field and the theories or principles that underpin them, in order to choose the approach that best matches your objectives.
Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyse data (e.g. interviews, experiments , surveys , statistical tests ).
In a dissertation or scientific paper, the methodology chapter or methods section comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion .
Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.
Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.
Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.
A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population. Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research.
For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.
Statistical sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population. There are various sampling methods you can use to ensure that your sample is representative of the population as a whole.
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.
McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/methodology/
Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide.
The methods section of a research paper provides the information by which a study’s validity is judged. The method section answers two main questions: 1) How was the data collected or generated? 2) How was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and written in the past tense.
You must explain how you obtained and analyzed your results for the following reasons:
Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article . Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.
I. Groups of Research Methods
There are two main groups of research methods in the social sciences:
II. Content
An effectively written methodology section should:
NOTE : Once you have written all of the elements of the methods section, subsequent revisions should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and as logically as possibly. The description of how you prepared to study the research problem, how you gathered the data, and the protocol for analyzing the data should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic.
III. Problems to Avoid
Irrelevant Detail The methodology section of your paper should be thorough but to the point. Don’t provide any background information that doesn’t directly help the reader to understand why a particular method was chosen, how the data was gathered or obtained, and how it was analyzed. Unnecessary Explanation of Basic Procedures Remember that you are not writing a how-to guide about a particular method. You should make the assumption that readers possess a basic understanding of how to investigate the research problem on their own and, therefore, you do not have to go into great detail about specific methodological procedures. The focus should be on how you applied a method , not on the mechanics of doing a method. NOTE: An exception to this rule is if you select an unconventional approach to doing the method; if this is the case, be sure to explain why this approach was chosen and how it enhances the overall research process. Problem Blindness It is almost a given that you will encounter problems when collecting or generating your data. Do not ignore these problems or pretend they did not occur. Often, documenting how you overcame obstacles can form an interesting part of the methodology. It demonstrates to the reader that you can provide a cogent rationale for the decisions you made to minimize the impact of any problems that arose. Literature Review Just as the literature review section of your paper provides an overview of sources you have examined while researching a particular topic, the methodology section should cite any sources that informed your choice and application of a particular method [i.e., the choice of a survey should include any citations to the works you used to help construct the survey].
It’s More than Sources of Information! A description of a research study's method should not be confused with a description of the sources of information. Such a list of sources is useful in itself, especially if it is accompanied by an explanation about the selection and use of the sources. The description of the project's methodology complements a list of sources in that it sets forth the organization and interpretation of information emanating from those sources.
Azevedo, L.F. et al. How to Write a Scientific Paper: Writing the Methods Section. Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia 17 (2011): 232-238; Butin, Dan W. The Education Dissertation A Guide for Practitioner Scholars . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010; Carter, Susan. Structuring Your Research Thesis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Methods Section . The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Methods and Materials . The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College.
Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!
Don't avoid using a quantitative approach to analyzing your research problem just because you fear the idea of applying statistical designs and tests. A qualitative approach, such as conducting interviews or content analysis of archival texts, can yield exciting new insights about a research problem, but it should not be undertaken simply because you have a disdain for running a simple regression. A well designed quantitative research study can often be accomplished in very clear and direct ways, whereas, a similar study of a qualitative nature usually requires considerable time to analyze large volumes of data and a tremendous burden to create new paths for analysis where previously no path associated with your research problem had existed.
Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods
There can be multiple meaning associated with the term "theories" and the term "methods" in social sciences research. A helpful way to delineate between them is to understand "theories" as representing different ways of characterizing the social world when you research it and "methods" as representing different ways of generating and analyzing data about that social world. Framed in this way, all empirical social sciences research involves theories and methods, whether they are stated explicitly or not. However, while theories and methods are often related, it is important that, as a researcher, you deliberately separate them in order to avoid your theories playing a disproportionate role in shaping what outcomes your chosen methods produce.
Introspectively engage in an ongoing dialectic between theories and methods to help enable you to use the outcomes from your methods to interrogate and develop new theories, or ways of framing conceptually the research problem. This is how scholarship grows and branches out into new intellectual territory.
Reynolds, R. Larry. Ways of Knowing. Alternative Microeconomics. Part 1, Chapter 3. Boise State University; The Theory-Method Relationship . S-Cool Revision. United Kingdom.
FIND US ON
Verify originality of an essay
Get ideas for your paper
Cite sources with ease
Updated 30 Aug 2024
Starting to work on your first academic research projects you may feel overwhelmed by the abundance of technical concepts that are commonly used. You may encounter terms like "research methods," "research methodology," and "data collection and analysis" that seem endless. Let’s clarify what they mean.
Before starting any research work, you must know what methods you’ll use to reach your goals. For that, understanding the research methodology definition is needed. The research methodology is essential to a dissertation, thesis, or research paper as it explains the methods applied to collect and analyze data. This chapter from EduBirdie research paper writing services enables readers to estimate the validity and credibility of your research by providing the following information:
The methodology is the overall plan of your project, which includes studying the methods applied in research and the basic principles and theories to develop a suitable approach for achieving your purposes. As for methods, they involve specific procedures used for collecting and analyzing data, like surveys, statistical tests, and experiments.
A simple description of the methods may be sufficient for shorter scientific papers. A methodology section may be required for more extensive and complex projects (dissertation or thesis). In this paragraph, a researcher should explain the approach to explore questions and provide links to relevant sources to support the choice of methods. Understanding research methodology is crucial for conducting effective studies, but if you're struggling to put it all together, you might consider the option to pay someone to write my paper to ensure your methodology is thoroughly and accurately presented.
Ensure your papers' accuracy and quality with expert editing and fact-checking for just $7/page.
You shouldn’t underestimate the importance of this paragraph, as it serves as a platform to demonstrate the thoroughness of your research process and its potential for further investigation. By including a section with a detailed description of the research methods applied, you increase the credibility of your paper and contextualize it within your area of study. This paragraph also serves as a reference for readers with questions or criticisms elsewhere in your article.
This paragraph doesn’t have to describe the data-collecting or analyzing process. Instead, this should outline the essential approaches and research perspectives. Let’s see what research methodology steps to take to complete a well-thought-out paragraph:
To ensure a clear and comprehensive methodology paragraph, it’s essential to avoid irrelevant information.
Adherence to ethical standards is critical to establishing trust, mutual respect, accountability, and fairness in research. Researchers should keep the following ethical considerations in mind when collecting and reporting data:
Three research methodology types are distinguished by their focus on numbers, words, or both. Let’s clarify their differences and features.
This approach aims to measure and test numerical data. It is used to confirm something. The method employs various techniques, such as tests, surveys, and existing databases. For instance, the quantitative methodology may be appropriate if you need to test several hypotheses.
It involves the collection and analysis of textual data and words. This approach is commonly used for exploratory research, where the study objective is to understand a phenomenon. It involves various techniques like interviews, observations, and focus groups. Exploratory research may be particularly useful in Sociology or Psychology, which aims to understand human actions.
This approach combines quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The quantitative method provides definitive facts and figures, while the qualitative approach adds a particular human aspect to the research. Researchers can obtain exact and exploratory data using a mixed-method approach, leading to incredibly interesting outcomes.
A quantitative approach enables getting practical results if your research problem involves collecting extensive numerical data. Otherwise, a qualitative methodology is more effective if you aim to understand people and their perspectives on events. For choosing the most suitable methodology, it’s essential to constantly address the research question and think about what you hope to achieve.
Many students feel confused when gathering data for their projects as they don’t know how to find resources for a research paper. We have something to tell you in this respect. The collecting data process for your study offers various options, which can be divided into the following types:
Interviews can be conducted one-on-one or in groups. They may be unstructured, structured, or semi-structured, which depends on how formal the questions are. In group interviews, you may ask participants to share their perceptions or opinions on specific topics.
This method is similar to a group interview but still has some differences. Focus groups involve a group of individuals discussing a particular topic while the researcher takes notes to make a summary of the received data.
This approach can be used to study human behavior and is conducted in a structured or spontaneous manner. Structured observations are made at a predetermined time and place, while spontaneous observations occur in participants' natural environments to analyze their behavior in everyday life.
Following this method, questions are posed to gather responses from participants, either in-person or virtually. The questions are free-answer (essay-style questions are good examples) and closed questions (multiple-choice). It's also possible to use a combination of both types of questions in a survey.
This involves something other than asking people questions. Instead, it relies on existing data for a study. This approach can be cost-effective and efficient, using research already completed. Still, since the researcher has limited control over the outcomes, documents, and records may need to provide a complete data source.
This method involves observing a person, situation, cultural group, or institution closely and thoroughly to explore the life of this social unit. The case study approach considers the total situation, including the factors, processes, and consequences of events and the individual behavior in its entire setting. It also involves analyzing and comparing cases to formulate hypotheses.
The choice of the data collection methodology in research depends on your academic paper objectives, resource constraints, and practicality. Let’s consider an example. If you’re doing exploratory research, it’s better to choose qualitative methods, such as interviews and focus groups, as they are more appropriate. On the other hand, if your project focuses on analyzing specific hypotheses or variables, large-scale surveys that provide substantial numerical data are likely more suitable.
Data analysis methods are typically categorized based on whether the research is qualitative or quantitative. Let’s consider them in detail.
Qualitative data analysis starts with data coding and is followed by one or more analysis techniques. While using this approach, researchers investigate based on images, observations, and language. They commonly employ the following data analysis methods:
This approach involves categorizing and interpreting the meaning of language (sentences, phrases, or words). Researchers apply it to various data sources, like newspapers, books, video recordings, social media posts, etc.
This method looks at how social contexts shape communication and meaning. It’s applied to explore cultural and social factors that affect the production and reception of spoken and written communication (political speeches, everyday conversations, media texts, etc.).
This method involves coding and examining data to discover general themes and patterns through analyzing focus group discussions, interview transcripts, and open-ended survey responses. The study’s results based on this method illustrate how the themes identified contribute to a broader understanding of the research question.
It involves interpreting story-based or narrative information and identifying the role and significance of people’s experiences. Narrative analysis can be applied to life histories, biographical accounts, and personal stories.
This approach is applied to develop concepts and theories based on the data gathered during research. It aims to generate theories from the data rather than begin with existing hypotheses and theories. When data is gathered, it is analyzed to discover themes and patterns which serve as a basis for developing concepts.
This is the way to explore how individuals interpret relationships, events, and other spheres of their lives. The central concept of this method is the subjective experience which is analyzed using interviews with participants to find out their patterns and understanding of the world around them.
The use of the following data analysis methods typically characterizes it:
The research purposes, practicalities, and resource constraints determine the choice of data analysis method.
Your research objectives heavily influence the choice of your methodological approach. Therefore, taking a step back and considering the bigger picture of your research before making any methodology decisions is crucial. To begin, you should determine whether your investigation is confirmatory or exploratory.
If your paper’s objectives are primarily exploratory, qualitative data collection research methodologies (for example, interviews) and analysis methods (such as thematic analysis) may be more suitable. In contrast, if your paper is looking to test or measure something (for example, confirmatory), quantitative data collection methods (like surveys) and statistical analyses may be more appropriate. It is essential to remember that your research objectives should always be the starting point. All methodology decisions should stem from them.
You must understand that your goal is not describing every method in your research methodology paragraph but explaining why you‘ve applied it. Here are some tips for writing strong examples of research methodology.
1. Concentrate on your purposes and research questions.
You should clearly show why your methods match your objectives and persuade the readers that you’ve selected the best possible method to answer your research questions and problem statement.
2. Refer to relevant sources.
You can strengthen your methodology by citing existing research in your study area. This allows you to do the following:
3. Think about your readers when writing for them.
Define how many details and what kind of information you have to give, and don’t be too redundant. If you choose typical methods that are standard for your subject, you shouldn’t give much justification or background.
Bring a human touch to your AI-generated drafts. Our expert editors refine your content for just $7/page.
Where does the methodology section go in a research paper?
The methodology section of research paper is always presented in a scientific paper after the introduction and before results, discussion, and conclusion. This structure is also used in other types of research papers, such as a thesis, dissertation, or research proposal. However, depending on the scope and purpose of an academic paper, including a literature review or a theoretical framework before presenting the research methodology may be required.
What is the difference between reliability and validity?
When measuring something, the two most important concepts are reliability and validity. Let’s see their peculiarities. Reliability is related to the consistency of measurement, which means the ability to reproduce results under identical conditions. Whereas validity is concerned with the accuracy of a measurement, determining whether or not the results truly represent what they are intended to measure. In experimental studies, it is also important to analyze the internal and external validity of the experiment.
What is the most common research methodology?
The most popular research methodologies are quantitative and qualitative. The choice of a suitable approach depends on the research objective. Researchers use a quantitative method if a research problem demands a large amount of numerical data to test hypotheses. If their objective is to gain insight into people's perceptions and understanding of events, they opt for a qualitative method.
What is a good research methodology example?
A good research methodology is thorough, transparent, and systematic. It must be designed to answer the research question and hypothesis and ensure the results are valid and reliable. Here is a good research methodology sample:
" This study aimed to investigate the effects of mindfulness-based interventions on stress and well-being among college students. A randomized controlled trial design was used in which people were randomly assigned to either an experimental group that received a mindfulness-based intervention or a control group that received no intervention. The study sample comprised 80 undergraduate students at a major US public university. Data were collected through self-report measures of stress and well-being at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and during three months of follow-up. Descriptive statistics were used to present the characteristics of the sample, and repeated measures ANOVA was used to explore the effect of the intervention on stress and well-being over time. Ethical considerations were considered throughout the study, and informed consent was obtained from all participants before participation. The university's institutional review board approved the study."
Thanks for your feedback.
Steven Robinson is an academic writing expert with a degree in English literature. His expertise, patient approach, and support empower students to express ideas clearly. On EduBirdie's blog, he provides valuable writing guides on essays, research papers, and other intriguing topics. Enjoys chess in free time.
How to craft research objectives: guidelines & tips.
In the ever-evolving landscape of academic study, having clear and well-defined research objectives is crucial for the success of any work. Study a...
Properly formatting a research paper in APA or MLA style is essential for several reasons. First, it ensures that your work adheres to the academic...
Students in social sciences frequently seek to understand how people feel, think, and behave in specific situations or relationships that evolve ov...
Ask A Librarian
chat Text: 1-308-210-3865 email Librarians by Subject Make an Appointment
An annotated bibliography is a list of citations for books, articles, and/or documents that you have read in pursuit of your research. Each citation is followed by a brief (at least 100 words) paragraph that describes and evaluates the source.
Annotated bibliographies are useful tools for gathering and condensing information about the relevance, accuracy, and quality of the sources you're planning to cite in your paper/project/presentation.
NOTE: An annotated bibliography IS NOT a required element of this course's assignment, however at least creating a spreadsheet outlining the key points of the articles researched for your position paper can be key to highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of your arguments. It's a good way to keep all the information straight without having to reread everything.
1. The full citation for the source (or whatever citation style is required for the assignment).
2. A paragraph that includes: a. A brief summary of the source – its main point or argument, written in your own words. b. A description of the authority or background of the author(s). c. A description of how this source compares and/or contrasts with other sources you have read on this topic. d. An explanation of how this source contributes to answering your research question.
3. All of this needs to be written in your own words, to convey your own understanding of the source. If you simply copy or lift language (or cut and paste) from the source or its abstract, you have failed.
Example 1: Fullard, D. (2005). Biodiversity Education at a Natural World Heritage Site: Kirstenbosch Botanical Garden. Roots 2(1): 3. Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden, in Cape Town, is the first botanical garden to be recognized as a natural World Heritage Site. The Kirstenbosch Environmental Education Program supports the World Heritage Convention’s mission to encourage participation of the local population in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage. The program’s stated mission is to inspire and enable people from all walks of life to take responsibility for their environment. Learners/youth from the disadvantaged areas and under-resourced schools of the Cape Flats in the Western Cape participate in a curriculum-linked, gardenbased and outreach greening program which cover a wide variety of themes, learning program and activities. The article does not describe and specific outcomes or how program successes were measured and evaluated. Example 2:
Kletou, D., Hall-Spencer, J. M., & Kleitou, P. (2016). A lionfish (Pterois miles) invasion has begun in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Biodiversity Records 9( 46) . 1-7. doi:10.1186/s41200-016-0065-y This article discusses the recent invasion of the lionfish in the Mediterranean Sea and offers reasons for the sudden increase in the species' presence. The study concludes that growth of the lionfish population can be controlled by encouraging commercial fishermen and divers to capture the lionfish to be sold on the market. While the article provides data and graphs that forecast the decline of the lionfish with a commercial fishing intervention, the methodology is incomplete. The researchers do not fully explain how they obtained these results. The article does not address external factors that may derail the fishing plan proposed by the authors; for example, the researchers do not consider the population growth rate of the lionfish or how aggressive the fishing rate needs to be to control the population in a timely manner. Although the introduction is helpful in providing a framework for why the lionfish invasion is a concerning issue, the discussion lacks depth in addressing other issues that may arise.
(Source: University of West Florida LibGuides: EVR 2001: Introduction to Environmental Science. https://libguides.uwf.edu/c.php?g=436278&p=3891645)
2508 11th Avenue, Kearney, NE 68849-2240
Circulation Desk: 308-865-8599 Main Office: 308-865-8535
Ask A Librarian
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Research on surgical gesture recognition in open surgery based on fusion of r3d and multi-head attention mechanism.
2.1. dataset overview, 2.2. surgical gesture description, 2.3. data processing, 2.4. r3d-mha network architecture, 2.5. overall technical framework, 2.6. implementation details, 2.7. evaluation metrics, 3.1. offline recognition, 3.2. online recognition, 3.3. evaluation of the jigsaws dataset, 4. discussion, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
Click here to enlarge figure
Device Name | Device Model | Data Format | Resolution | Frame Rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
Surgical lamp coaxial camera (Shanghai Pinxing Medical Equipment Co., LTD., Shanghai, China) | WYD2015-LC | Structured light video data *.mkv | 1920 × 1080 | 30.0 |
Kinect depth camera (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) | Kinect v2.0 | Deep grayscale video data *.avi | 512 × 424 | 25.0 |
Head-mounted video camera (GoPro, Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA) | HERO4 Black | Structured light video data *.MP4 | 1920 × 1080 | 25.0 |
Gestures | Gesture Description | Boundary Frame |
---|---|---|
G1 | Clamping the needle | Forceps just touching the tissue |
G2 | Forceps pick up the tissue | The holder has just started to move |
G3 | Positioning needle | The needle has just made contact with the tissue |
G4 | Pushing the needle through tissue | The needle tip has penetrated the tissue |
G5 | Clamping the needle through tissue | The needle has just departed from the tissue |
G6 | Pulling suture with holder | The holder loosens the needle or moves out of view |
G7 | Hand pulling suture | The needle holder approaches the vicinity of the suture line |
G8 | Knotting the suture | The scissors are not visible in the field of view |
G9 | Cutting the suture | The scissors are removed from the field of view |
G10 | Other | The holder regrasps the needle, Actions other than the nine surgical gestures (G1–G9), Other scenarios |
Gesture | G1 | G2 | G3 | G4 | G5 | G6 | G7 | G8 | G9 | G10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Instances | 168 | 163 | 220 | 218 | 219 | 203 | 326 | 218 | 217 | 665 |
Overlapping segments | 1495 | 1347 | 2376 | 4144 | 3086 | 1490 | 2493 | 17,173 | 2857 | 13,846 |
Mean frame count | 33 | 28 | 45 | 108 | 75 | 18 | 23 | 432 | 59 | 110 |
Min frame count | 3 | 5 | 6 | 21 | 11 | 2 | 3 | 99 | 26 | 3 |
Max frame count | 314 | 97 | 170 | 356 | 297 | 73 | 135 | 1435 | 216 | 593 |
Model | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) |
---|---|---|---|
R(2+1)D | 88.7 | 89.0 | 87.8 |
C3D | 88.6 | 88.0 | 87.2 |
Slowfast | 81.7 | 79.7 | 78.3 |
Vivit | 60.0 | 56.3 | 55.6 |
I3D | 88.8 | 88.6 | 88.1 |
R3D | 90.4 | 90.5 | 90.0 |
Model | G1 | G2 | G3 | G4 | G5 | G6 | G7 | G8 | G9 | G10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R(2+1)D | 0.85 | 0.74 | 0.81 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.78 | 0.90 | 0.94 | 0.94 |
C3D | 0.59 | 0.67 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.73 | 0.76 | 0.86 | 0.91 | 0.92 |
Slowfast | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.53 | 0.81 | 0.89 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.60 | 0.90 | 0.93 |
Vivit | 0.73 | 0.44 | 0.60 | 0.48 | 0.32 | 0.45 | 0.70 | 0.44 | 0.62 | 0.79 |
I3D | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.81 | 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.92 |
R3D | 0.88 | 0.79 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.76 | 0.92 | 0.98 | 0.93 | ||
0.94 | 0.94 |
Model | Video00 | Video01 | Video02 | Average (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
R3D | 61.3 | 75.7 | 82.1 | 73.0 |
R3D-MHA | 62.6 | 75.7 | 81.8 | 73.4 |
Fold | SU-001 | SU-002 | SU-003 | SU-004 | SU-005 | Average (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 77.9 | 83.7 | 74.4 | 69.3 | 67.1 | 74.5 |
2 | 66.6 | 80.6 | 79.5 | 79.9 | 82.9 | 77.9 |
3 | 67.2 | X | 80.7 | 76.3 | 81.7 | 76.5 |
All | 76.3 |
Model | Acc (%) | Trained on Additional Dataset | Applicable Online |
---|---|---|---|
CRF (dense) [ ] | 68.8 | - | √ |
MsM-CRF (STIP–STIP) [ ] | 66.3 | - | √ |
MsM-CRF (dense–dense) [ ] | 71.8 | - | √ |
CNN+LC-SC-CRF [ ] | 76.6 | √ (Sensor Values) | √ |
ST-GCN [ ] | 67.9 | - | √ |
MTL-VF [ ] | 82.1 | √ (Sports-1M and ImageNet) | √ |
3D-CNN [ ] | 84.0 | √ (Kinetics) | √ |
C3Dtrans [ ] | 75.8 | - | √ |
- | √ |
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Men, Y.; Luo, J.; Zhao, Z.; Wu, H.; Zhang, G.; Luo, F.; Yu, M. Research on Surgical Gesture Recognition in Open Surgery Based on Fusion of R3D and Multi-Head Attention Mechanism. Appl. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 8021. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14178021
Men Y, Luo J, Zhao Z, Wu H, Zhang G, Luo F, Yu M. Research on Surgical Gesture Recognition in Open Surgery Based on Fusion of R3D and Multi-Head Attention Mechanism. Applied Sciences . 2024; 14(17):8021. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14178021
Men, Yutao, Jian Luo, Zixian Zhao, Hang Wu, Guang Zhang, Feng Luo, and Ming Yu. 2024. "Research on Surgical Gesture Recognition in Open Surgery Based on Fusion of R3D and Multi-Head Attention Mechanism" Applied Sciences 14, no. 17: 8021. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14178021
Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
Methodology
Published on June 20, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on June 22, 2023.
When you start planning a research project, developing research questions and creating a research design , you will have to make various decisions about the type of research you want to do.
There are many ways to categorize different types of research. The words you use to describe your research depend on your discipline and field. In general, though, the form your research design takes will be shaped by:
This article takes a look at some common distinctions made between different types of research and outlines the key differences between them.
Types of research aims, types of research data, types of sampling, timescale, and location, other interesting articles.
The first thing to consider is what kind of knowledge your research aims to contribute.
Type of research | What’s the difference? | What to consider |
---|---|---|
Basic vs. applied | Basic research aims to , while applied research aims to . | Do you want to expand scientific understanding or solve a practical problem? |
vs. | Exploratory research aims to , while explanatory research aims to . | How much is already known about your research problem? Are you conducting initial research on a newly-identified issue, or seeking precise conclusions about an established issue? |
aims to , while aims to . | Is there already some theory on your research problem that you can use to develop , or do you want to propose new theories based on your findings? |
The next thing to consider is what type of data you will collect. Each kind of data is associated with a range of specific research methods and procedures.
Type of research | What’s the difference? | What to consider |
---|---|---|
Primary research vs secondary research | Primary data is (e.g., through or ), while secondary data (e.g., in government or scientific publications). | How much data is already available on your topic? Do you want to collect original data or analyze existing data (e.g., through a )? |
, while . | Is your research more concerned with measuring something or interpreting something? You can also create a research design that has elements of both. | |
vs | Descriptive research gathers data , while experimental research . | Do you want to identify characteristics, patterns and or test causal relationships between ? |
Finally, you have to consider three closely related questions: how will you select the subjects or participants of the research? When and how often will you collect data from your subjects? And where will the research take place?
Keep in mind that the methods that you choose bring with them different risk factors and types of research bias . Biases aren’t completely avoidable, but can heavily impact the validity and reliability of your findings if left unchecked.
Type of research | What’s the difference? | What to consider |
---|---|---|
allows you to , while allows you to draw conclusions . | Do you want to produce knowledge that applies to many contexts or detailed knowledge about a specific context (e.g. in a )? | |
vs | Cross-sectional studies , while longitudinal studies . | Is your research question focused on understanding the current situation or tracking changes over time? |
Field research vs laboratory research | Field research takes place in , while laboratory research takes place in . | Do you want to find out how something occurs in the real world or draw firm conclusions about cause and effect? Laboratory experiments have higher but lower . |
Fixed design vs flexible design | In a fixed research design the subjects, timescale and location are begins, while in a flexible design these aspects may . | Do you want to test hypotheses and establish generalizable facts, or explore concepts and develop understanding? For measuring, testing and making generalizations, a fixed research design has higher . |
Choosing between all these different research types is part of the process of creating your research design , which determines exactly how your research will be conducted. But the type of research is only the first step: next, you have to make more concrete decisions about your research methods and the details of the study.
Read more about creating a research design
If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
Research bias
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
McCombes, S. (2023, June 22). Types of Research Designs Compared | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/types-of-research/
Other students also liked, what is a research design | types, guide & examples, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".
I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”
Peer Reviewed
Article metrics.
CrossRef Citations
Altmetric Score
PDF Downloads
Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research. Our analysis of a selection of questionable GPT-fabricated scientific papers found in Google Scholar shows that many are about applied, often controversial topics susceptible to disinformation: the environment, health, and computing. The resulting enhanced potential for malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base, particularly in politically divisive domains, is a growing concern.
Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Sweden
Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences, Lund University, Sweden
Division of Environmental Communication, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
The use of ChatGPT to generate text for academic papers has raised concerns about research integrity. Discussion of this phenomenon is ongoing in editorials, commentaries, opinion pieces, and on social media (Bom, 2023; Stokel-Walker, 2024; Thorp, 2023). There are now several lists of papers suspected of GPT misuse, and new papers are constantly being added. 1 See for example Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . While many legitimate uses of GPT for research and academic writing exist (Huang & Tan, 2023; Kitamura, 2023; Lund et al., 2023), its undeclared use—beyond proofreading—has potentially far-reaching implications for both science and society, but especially for their relationship. It, therefore, seems important to extend the discussion to one of the most accessible and well-known intermediaries between science, but also certain types of misinformation, and the public, namely Google Scholar, also in response to the legitimate concerns that the discussion of generative AI and misinformation needs to be more nuanced and empirically substantiated (Simon et al., 2023).
Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com , is an easy-to-use academic search engine. It is available for free, and its index is extensive (Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020). It is also often touted as a credible source for academic literature and even recommended in library guides, by media and information literacy initiatives, and fact checkers (Tripodi et al., 2023). However, Google Scholar lacks the transparency and adherence to standards that usually characterize citation databases. Instead, Google Scholar uses automated crawlers, like Google’s web search engine (Martín-Martín et al., 2021), and the inclusion criteria are based on primarily technical standards, allowing any individual author—with or without scientific affiliation—to upload papers to be indexed (Google Scholar Help, n.d.). It has been shown that Google Scholar is susceptible to manipulation through citation exploits (Antkare, 2020) and by providing access to fake scientific papers (Dadkhah et al., 2017). A large part of Google Scholar’s index consists of publications from established scientific journals or other forms of quality-controlled, scholarly literature. However, the index also contains a large amount of gray literature, including student papers, working papers, reports, preprint servers, and academic networking sites, as well as material from so-called “questionable” academic journals, including paper mills. The search interface does not offer the possibility to filter the results meaningfully by material type, publication status, or form of quality control, such as limiting the search to peer-reviewed material.
To understand the occurrence of ChatGPT (co-)authored work in Google Scholar’s index, we scraped it for publications, including one of two common ChatGPT responses (see Appendix A) that we encountered on social media and in media reports (DeGeurin, 2024). The results of our descriptive statistical analyses showed that around 62% did not declare the use of GPTs. Most of these GPT-fabricated papers were found in non-indexed journals and working papers, but some cases included research published in mainstream scientific journals and conference proceedings. 2 Indexed journals mean scholarly journals indexed by abstract and citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, where the indexation implies journals with high scientific quality. Non-indexed journals are journals that fall outside of this indexation. More than half (57%) of these GPT-fabricated papers concerned policy-relevant subject areas susceptible to influence operations. To avoid increasing the visibility of these publications, we abstained from referencing them in this research note. However, we have made the data available in the Harvard Dataverse repository.
The publications were related to three issue areas—health (14.5%), environment (19.5%) and computing (23%)—with key terms such “healthcare,” “COVID-19,” or “infection”for health-related papers, and “analysis,” “sustainable,” and “global” for environment-related papers. In several cases, the papers had titles that strung together general keywords and buzzwords, thus alluding to very broad and current research. These terms included “biology,” “telehealth,” “climate policy,” “diversity,” and “disrupting,” to name just a few. While the study’s scope and design did not include a detailed analysis of which parts of the articles included fabricated text, our dataset did contain the surrounding sentences for each occurrence of the suspicious phrases that formed the basis for our search and subsequent selection. Based on that, we can say that the phrases occurred in most sections typically found in scientific publications, including the literature review, methods, conceptual and theoretical frameworks, background, motivation or societal relevance, and even discussion. This was confirmed during the joint coding, where we read and discussed all articles. It became clear that not just the text related to the telltale phrases was created by GPT, but that almost all articles in our sample of questionable articles likely contained traces of GPT-fabricated text everywhere.
Evidence hacking and backfiring effects
Generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) can be used to produce texts that mimic scientific writing. These texts, when made available online—as we demonstrate—leak into the databases of academic search engines and other parts of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication. This development exacerbates problems that were already present with less sophisticated text generators (Antkare, 2020; Cabanac & Labbé, 2021). Yet, the public release of ChatGPT in 2022, together with the way Google Scholar works, has increased the likelihood of lay people (e.g., media, politicians, patients, students) coming across questionable (or even entirely GPT-fabricated) papers and other problematic research findings. Previous research has emphasized that the ability to determine the value and status of scientific publications for lay people is at stake when misleading articles are passed off as reputable (Haider & Åström, 2017) and that systematic literature reviews risk being compromised (Dadkhah et al., 2017). It has also been highlighted that Google Scholar, in particular, can be and has been exploited for manipulating the evidence base for politically charged issues and to fuel conspiracy narratives (Tripodi et al., 2023). Both concerns are likely to be magnified in the future, increasing the risk of what we suggest calling evidence hacking —the strategic and coordinated malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base.
The authority of quality-controlled research as evidence to support legislation, policy, politics, and other forms of decision-making is undermined by the presence of undeclared GPT-fabricated content in publications professing to be scientific. Due to the large number of archives, repositories, mirror sites, and shadow libraries to which they spread, there is a clear risk that GPT-fabricated, questionable papers will reach audiences even after a possible retraction. There are considerable technical difficulties involved in identifying and tracing computer-fabricated papers (Cabanac & Labbé, 2021; Dadkhah et al., 2023; Jones, 2024), not to mention preventing and curbing their spread and uptake.
However, as the rise of the so-called anti-vaxx movement during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing obstruction and denial of climate change show, retracting erroneous publications often fuels conspiracies and increases the following of these movements rather than stopping them. To illustrate this mechanism, climate deniers frequently question established scientific consensus by pointing to other, supposedly scientific, studies that support their claims. Usually, these are poorly executed, not peer-reviewed, based on obsolete data, or even fraudulent (Dunlap & Brulle, 2020). A similar strategy is successful in the alternative epistemic world of the global anti-vaccination movement (Carrion, 2018) and the persistence of flawed and questionable publications in the scientific record already poses significant problems for health research, policy, and lawmakers, and thus for society as a whole (Littell et al., 2024). Considering that a person’s support for “doing your own research” is associated with increased mistrust in scientific institutions (Chinn & Hasell, 2023), it will be of utmost importance to anticipate and consider such backfiring effects already when designing a technical solution, when suggesting industry or legal regulation, and in the planning of educational measures.
Recommendations
Solutions should be based on simultaneous considerations of technical, educational, and regulatory approaches, as well as incentives, including social ones, across the entire research infrastructure. Paying attention to how these approaches and incentives relate to each other can help identify points and mechanisms for disruption. Recognizing fraudulent academic papers must happen alongside understanding how they reach their audiences and what reasons there might be for some of these papers successfully “sticking around.” A possible way to mitigate some of the risks associated with GPT-fabricated scholarly texts finding their way into academic search engine results would be to provide filtering options for facets such as indexed journals, gray literature, peer-review, and similar on the interface of publicly available academic search engines. Furthermore, evaluation tools for indexed journals 3 Such as LiU Journal CheckUp, https://ep.liu.se/JournalCheckup/default.aspx?lang=eng . could be integrated into the graphical user interfaces and the crawlers of these academic search engines. To enable accountability, it is important that the index (database) of such a search engine is populated according to criteria that are transparent, open to scrutiny, and appropriate to the workings of science and other forms of academic research. Moreover, considering that Google Scholar has no real competitor, there is a strong case for establishing a freely accessible, non-specialized academic search engine that is not run for commercial reasons but for reasons of public interest. Such measures, together with educational initiatives aimed particularly at policymakers, science communicators, journalists, and other media workers, will be crucial to reducing the possibilities for and effects of malicious manipulation or evidence hacking. It is important not to present this as a technical problem that exists only because of AI text generators but to relate it to the wider concerns in which it is embedded. These range from a largely dysfunctional scholarly publishing system (Haider & Åström, 2017) and academia’s “publish or perish” paradigm to Google’s near-monopoly and ideological battles over the control of information and ultimately knowledge. Any intervention is likely to have systemic effects; these effects need to be considered and assessed in advance and, ideally, followed up on.
Our study focused on a selection of papers that were easily recognizable as fraudulent. We used this relatively small sample as a magnifying glass to examine, delineate, and understand a problem that goes beyond the scope of the sample itself, which however points towards larger concerns that require further investigation. The work of ongoing whistleblowing initiatives 4 Such as Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . , recent media reports of journal closures (Subbaraman, 2024), or GPT-related changes in word use and writing style (Cabanac et al., 2021; Stokel-Walker, 2024) suggest that we only see the tip of the iceberg. There are already more sophisticated cases (Dadkhah et al., 2023) as well as cases involving fabricated images (Gu et al., 2022). Our analysis shows that questionable and potentially manipulative GPT-fabricated papers permeate the research infrastructure and are likely to become a widespread phenomenon. Our findings underline that the risk of fake scientific papers being used to maliciously manipulate evidence (see Dadkhah et al., 2017) must be taken seriously. Manipulation may involve undeclared automatic summaries of texts, inclusion in literature reviews, explicit scientific claims, or the concealment of errors in studies so that they are difficult to detect in peer review. However, the mere possibility of these things happening is a significant risk in its own right that can be strategically exploited and will have ramifications for trust in and perception of science. Society’s methods of evaluating sources and the foundations of media and information literacy are under threat and public trust in science is at risk of further erosion, with far-reaching consequences for society in dealing with information disorders. To address this multifaceted problem, we first need to understand why it exists and proliferates.
Finding 1: 139 GPT-fabricated, questionable papers were found and listed as regular results on the Google Scholar results page. Non-indexed journals dominate.
Most questionable papers we found were in non-indexed journals or were working papers, but we did also find some in established journals, publications, conferences, and repositories. We found a total of 139 papers with a suspected deceptive use of ChatGPT or similar LLM applications (see Table 1). Out of these, 19 were in indexed journals, 89 were in non-indexed journals, 19 were student papers found in university databases, and 12 were working papers (mostly in preprint databases). Table 1 divides these papers into categories. Health and environment papers made up around 34% (47) of the sample. Of these, 66% were present in non-indexed journals.
Indexed journals* | 5 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 19 |
Non-indexed journals | 18 | 18 | 13 | 40 | 89 |
Student papers | 4 | 3 | 1 | 11 | 19 |
Working papers | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 12 |
Total | 32 | 27 | 20 | 60 | 139 |
Finding 2: GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are disseminated online, permeating the research infrastructure for scholarly communication, often in multiple copies. Applied topics with practical implications dominate.
The 20 papers concerning health-related issues are distributed across 20 unique domains, accounting for 46 URLs. The 27 papers dealing with environmental issues can be found across 26 unique domains, accounting for 56 URLs. Most of the identified papers exist in multiple copies and have already spread to several archives, repositories, and social media. It would be difficult, or impossible, to remove them from the scientific record.
As apparent from Table 2, GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are seeping into most parts of the online research infrastructure for scholarly communication. Platforms on which identified papers have appeared include ResearchGate, ORCiD, Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology (JPTCP), Easychair, Frontiers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer (IEEE), and X/Twitter. Thus, even if they are retracted from their original source, it will prove very difficult to track, remove, or even just mark them up on other platforms. Moreover, unless regulated, Google Scholar will enable their continued and most likely unlabeled discoverability.
Environment | researchgate.net (13) | orcid.org (4) | easychair.org (3) | ijope.com* (3) | publikasiindonesia.id (3) |
Health | researchgate.net (15) | ieee.org (4) | twitter.com (3) | jptcp.com** (2) | frontiersin.org (2) |
A word rain visualization (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023), which combines word prominences through TF-IDF 5 Term frequency–inverse document frequency , a method for measuring the significance of a word in a document compared to its frequency across all documents in a collection. scores with semantic similarity of the full texts of our sample of GPT-generated articles that fall into the “Environment” and “Health” categories, reflects the two categories in question. However, as can be seen in Figure 1, it also reveals overlap and sub-areas. The y-axis shows word prominences through word positions and font sizes, while the x-axis indicates semantic similarity. In addition to a certain amount of overlap, this reveals sub-areas, which are best described as two distinct events within the word rain. The event on the left bundles terms related to the development and management of health and healthcare with “challenges,” “impact,” and “potential of artificial intelligence”emerging as semantically related terms. Terms related to research infrastructures, environmental, epistemic, and technological concepts are arranged further down in the same event (e.g., “system,” “climate,” “understanding,” “knowledge,” “learning,” “education,” “sustainable”). A second distinct event further to the right bundles terms associated with fish farming and aquatic medicinal plants, highlighting the presence of an aquaculture cluster. Here, the prominence of groups of terms such as “used,” “model,” “-based,” and “traditional” suggests the presence of applied research on these topics. The two events making up the word rain visualization, are linked by a less dominant but overlapping cluster of terms related to “energy” and “water.”
The bar chart of the terms in the paper subset (see Figure 2) complements the word rain visualization by depicting the most prominent terms in the full texts along the y-axis. Here, word prominences across health and environment papers are arranged descendingly, where values outside parentheses are TF-IDF values (relative frequencies) and values inside parentheses are raw term frequencies (absolute frequencies).
Finding 3: Google Scholar presents results from quality-controlled and non-controlled citation databases on the same interface, providing unfiltered access to GPT-fabricated questionable papers.
Google Scholar’s central position in the publicly accessible scholarly communication infrastructure, as well as its lack of standards, transparency, and accountability in terms of inclusion criteria, has potentially serious implications for public trust in science. This is likely to exacerbate the already-known potential to exploit Google Scholar for evidence hacking (Tripodi et al., 2023) and will have implications for any attempts to retract or remove fraudulent papers from their original publication venues. Any solution must consider the entirety of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication and the interplay of different actors, interests, and incentives.
We searched and scraped Google Scholar using the Python library Scholarly (Cholewiak et al., 2023) for papers that included specific phrases known to be common responses from ChatGPT and similar applications with the same underlying model (GPT3.5 or GPT4): “as of my last knowledge update” and/or “I don’t have access to real-time data” (see Appendix A). This facilitated the identification of papers that likely used generative AI to produce text, resulting in 227 retrieved papers. The papers’ bibliographic information was automatically added to a spreadsheet and downloaded into Zotero. 6 An open-source reference manager, https://zotero.org .
We employed multiple coding (Barbour, 2001) to classify the papers based on their content. First, we jointly assessed whether the paper was suspected of fraudulent use of ChatGPT (or similar) based on how the text was integrated into the papers and whether the paper was presented as original research output or the AI tool’s role was acknowledged. Second, in analyzing the content of the papers, we continued the multiple coding by classifying the fraudulent papers into four categories identified during an initial round of analysis—health, environment, computing, and others—and then determining which subjects were most affected by this issue (see Table 1). Out of the 227 retrieved papers, 88 papers were written with legitimate and/or declared use of GPTs (i.e., false positives, which were excluded from further analysis), and 139 papers were written with undeclared and/or fraudulent use (i.e., true positives, which were included in further analysis). The multiple coding was conducted jointly by all authors of the present article, who collaboratively coded and cross-checked each other’s interpretation of the data simultaneously in a shared spreadsheet file. This was done to single out coding discrepancies and settle coding disagreements, which in turn ensured methodological thoroughness and analytical consensus (see Barbour, 2001). Redoing the category coding later based on our established coding schedule, we achieved an intercoder reliability (Cohen’s kappa) of 0.806 after eradicating obvious differences.
The ranking algorithm of Google Scholar prioritizes highly cited and older publications (Martín-Martín et al., 2016). Therefore, the position of the articles on the search engine results pages was not particularly informative, considering the relatively small number of results in combination with the recency of the publications. Only the query “as of my last knowledge update” had more than two search engine result pages. On those, questionable articles with undeclared use of GPTs were evenly distributed across all result pages (min: 4, max: 9, mode: 8), with the proportion of undeclared use being slightly higher on average on later search result pages.
To understand how the papers making fraudulent use of generative AI were disseminated online, we programmatically searched for the paper titles (with exact string matching) in Google Search from our local IP address (see Appendix B) using the googlesearch – python library(Vikramaditya, 2020). We manually verified each search result to filter out false positives—results that were not related to the paper—and then compiled the most prominent URLs by field. This enabled the identification of other platforms through which the papers had been spread. We did not, however, investigate whether copies had spread into SciHub or other shadow libraries, or if they were referenced in Wikipedia.
We used descriptive statistics to count the prevalence of the number of GPT-fabricated papers across topics and venues and top domains by subject. The pandas software library for the Python programming language (The pandas development team, 2024) was used for this part of the analysis. Based on the multiple coding, paper occurrences were counted in relation to their categories, divided into indexed journals, non-indexed journals, student papers, and working papers. The schemes, subdomains, and subdirectories of the URL strings were filtered out while top-level domains and second-level domains were kept, which led to normalizing domain names. This, in turn, allowed the counting of domain frequencies in the environment and health categories. To distinguish word prominences and meanings in the environment and health-related GPT-fabricated questionable papers, a semantically-aware word cloud visualization was produced through the use of a word rain (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023) for full-text versions of the papers. Font size and y-axis positions indicate word prominences through TF-IDF scores for the environment and health papers (also visualized in a separate bar chart with raw term frequencies in parentheses), and words are positioned along the x-axis to reflect semantic similarity (Skeppstedt et al., 2024), with an English Word2vec skip gram model space (Fares et al., 2017). An English stop word list was used, along with a manually produced list including terms such as “https,” “volume,” or “years.”
Haider, J., Söderström, K. R., Ekström, B., & Rödl, M. (2024). GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-156
Antkare, I. (2020). Ike Antkare, his publications, and those of his disciples. In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the metrics (pp. 177–200). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0018
Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ , 322 (7294), 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
Bom, H.-S. H. (2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in academic writing: A roundtable discussion. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging , 57 (4), 165–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-023-00809-2
Cabanac, G., & Labbé, C. (2021). Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 72 (12), 1461–1476. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495
Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., & Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751
Carrion, M. L. (2018). “You need to do your research”: Vaccines, contestable science, and maternal epistemology. Public Understanding of Science , 27 (3), 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728024
Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala (2023). CDHUppsala/word-rain [Computer software]. https://github.com/CDHUppsala/word-rain
Chinn, S., & Hasell, A. (2023). Support for “doing your own research” is associated with COVID-19 misperceptions and scientific mistrust. Harvard Kennedy School (HSK) Misinformation Review, 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-117
Cholewiak, S. A., Ipeirotis, P., Silva, V., & Kannawadi, A. (2023). SCHOLARLY: Simple access to Google Scholar authors and citation using Python (1.5.0) [Computer software]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5764801
Dadkhah, M., Lagzian, M., & Borchardt, G. (2017). Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review. Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling , 11 (2), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6
Dadkhah, M., Oermann, M. H., Hegedüs, M., Raman, R., & Dávid, L. D. (2023). Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence. Diagnosis , 10 (4), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0090
DeGeurin, M. (2024, March 19). AI-generated nonsense is leaking into scientific journals. Popular Science. https://www.popsci.com/technology/ai-generated-text-scientific-journals/
Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (2020). Sources and amplifiers of climate change denial. In D.C. Holmes & L. M. Richardson (Eds.), Research handbook on communicating climate change (pp. 49–61). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900408.00013
Fares, M., Kutuzov, A., Oepen, S., & Velldal, E. (2017). Word vectors, reuse, and replicability: Towards a community repository of large-text resources. In J. Tiedemann & N. Tahmasebi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 271–276). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W17-0237
Google Scholar Help. (n.d.). Inclusion guidelines for webmasters . https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html
Gu, J., Wang, X., Li, C., Zhao, J., Fu, W., Liang, G., & Qiu, J. (2022). AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications. Patterns , 3 (7), 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100511
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods , 11 (2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
Haider, J., & Åström, F. (2017). Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon’s “Sting” in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 68 (2), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23669
Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research , 13 (4), 1148–1154. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164801/
Jones, N. (2024). How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images. Nature , 626 (8000), 697–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00372-6
Kitamura, F. C. (2023). ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology , 307 (2), e230171. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230171
Littell, J. H., Abel, K. M., Biggs, M. A., Blum, R. W., Foster, D. G., Haddad, L. B., Major, B., Munk-Olsen, T., Polis, C. B., Robinson, G. E., Rocca, C. H., Russo, N. F., Steinberg, J. R., Stewart, D. E., Stotland, N. L., Upadhyay, U. D., & Ditzhuijzen, J. van. (2024). Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes. BMJ , 384 , e076518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076518
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74 (5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). Back to the past: On the shoulders of an academic search engine giant. Scientometrics , 107 , 1477–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1917-2
Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics , 126 (1), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
Simon, F. M., Altay, S., & Mercier, H. (2023). Misinformation reloaded? Fears about the impact of generative AI on misinformation are overblown. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 4 (5). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-127
Skeppstedt, M., Ahltorp, M., Kucher, K., & Lindström, M. (2024). From word clouds to Word Rain: Revisiting the classic word cloud to visualize climate change texts. Information Visualization , 23 (3), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/14738716241236188
Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. Vetenskapsrådet.
Stokel-Walker, C. (2024, May 1.). AI Chatbots Have Thoroughly Infiltrated Scientific Publishing . Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatbots-have-thoroughly-infiltrated-scientific-publishing/
Subbaraman, N. (2024, May 14). Flood of fake science forces multiple journal closures: Wiley to shutter 19 more journals, some tainted by fraud. The Wall Street Journal . https://www.wsj.com/science/academic-studies-research-paper-mills-journals-publishing-f5a3d4bc
The pandas development team. (2024). pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas (v2.2.2) [Computer software]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10957263
Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science , 379 (6630), 313–313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879
Tripodi, F. B., Garcia, L. C., & Marwick, A. E. (2023). ‘Do your own research’: Affordance activation and disinformation spread. Information, Communication & Society , 27 (6), 1212–1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2245869
Vikramaditya, N. (2020). Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch [Computer software]. https://github.com/Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch
This research has been supported by Mistra, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, through the research program Mistra Environmental Communication (Haider, Ekström, Rödl) and the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation [2020.0004] (Söderström).
The authors declare no competing interests.
The research described in this article was carried out under Swedish legislation. According to the relevant EU and Swedish legislation (2003:460) on the ethical review of research involving humans (“Ethical Review Act”), the research reported on here is not subject to authorization by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (“etikprövningsmyndigheten”) (SRC, 2017).
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 that the original author and source are properly credited.
All data needed to replicate this study are available at the Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WUVD8X
The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the article manuscript as well as the editorial group of Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review for their thoughtful feedback and input.
Objectives This cohort study reported descriptive statistics in athletes engaged in Summer and Winter Olympic sports who sustained a sport-related concussion (SRC) and assessed the impact of access to multidisciplinary care and injury modifiers on recovery.
Methods 133 athletes formed two subgroups treated in a Canadian sport institute medical clinic: earlier (≤7 days) and late (≥8 days) access. Descriptive sample characteristics were reported and unrestricted return to sport (RTS) was evaluated based on access groups as well as injury modifiers. Correlations were assessed between time to RTS, history of concussions, the number of specialist consults and initial symptoms.
Results 160 SRC (median age 19.1 years; female=86 (54%); male=74 (46%)) were observed with a median (IQR) RTS duration of 34.0 (21.0–63.0) days. Median days to care access was different in the early (1; n SRC =77) and late (20; n SRC =83) groups, resulting in median (IQR) RTS duration of 26.0 (17.0–38.5) and 45.0 (27.5–84.5) days, respectively (p<0.001). Initial symptoms displayed a meaningful correlation with prognosis in this study (p<0.05), and female athletes (52 days (95% CI 42 to 101)) had longer recovery trajectories than male athletes (39 days (95% CI 31 to 65)) in the late access group (p<0.05).
Conclusions Olympic athletes in this cohort experienced an RTS time frame of about a month, partly due to limited access to multidisciplinary care and resources. Earlier access to care shortened the RTS delay. Greater initial symptoms and female sex in the late access group were meaningful modifiers of a longer RTS.
Data are available on reasonable request. Due to the confidential nature of the dataset, it will be shared through a controlled access repository and made available on specific and reasonable requests.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2024-108211
Request permissions.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Most data regarding the impact of sport-related concussion (SRC) guidelines on return to sport (RTS) are derived from collegiate or recreational athletes. In these groups, time to RTS has steadily increased in the literature since 2005, coinciding with the evolution of RTS guidelines. However, current evidence suggests that earlier access to care may accelerate recovery and RTS time frames.
This study reports epidemiological data on the occurrence of SRC in athletes from several Summer and Winter Olympic sports with either early or late access to multidisciplinary care. We found the median time to RTS for Olympic athletes with an SRC was 34.0 days which is longer than that reported in other athletic groups such as professional or collegiate athletes. Time to RTS was reduced by prompt access to multidisciplinary care following SRC, and sex-influenced recovery in the late access group with female athletes having a longer RTS timeline. Greater initial symptoms, but not prior concussion history, were also associated with a longer time to RTS.
Considerable differences exist in access to care for athletes engaged in Olympic sports, which impact their recovery. In this cohort, several concussions occurred during international competitions where athletes are confronted with poor access to organised healthcare. Pathways for prompt access to multidisciplinary care should be considered by healthcare authorities, especially for athletes who travel internationally and may not have the guidance or financial resources to access recommended care.
After two decades of consensus statements, sport-related concussion (SRC) remains a high focus of research, with incidence ranging from 0.1 to 21.5 SRC per 1000 athlete exposures, varying according to age, sex, sport and level of competition. 1 2 Evidence-based guidelines have been proposed by experts to improve its identification and management, such as those from the Concussion in Sport Group. 3 Notably, they recommend specific strategies to improve SRC detection and monitoring such as immediate removal, 4 prompt access to healthcare providers, 5 evidence-based interventions 6 and multidisciplinary team approaches. 7 It is believed that these guidelines contribute to improving the early identification and management of athletes with an SRC, thereby potentially mitigating its long-term consequences.
Nevertheless, evidence regarding the impact of SRC guidelines implementation remains remarkably limited, especially within high-performance sport domains. In fact, most reported SRC data focus on adolescent student-athletes, collegiate and sometimes professional athletes in the USA but often neglect Olympians. 1 2 8–11 Athletes engaged in Olympic sports, often referred to as elite amateurs, are typically classified among the highest performers in elite sport, alongside professional athletes. 12 13 They train year-round and uniquely compete regularly on the international stage in sports that often lack professional leagues and rely on highly variable resources and facilities, mostly dependent on winning medals. 14 Unlike professional athletes, Olympians do not have access to large financial rewards. Although some Olympians work or study in addition to their intensive sports practice, they can devote more time to full-time sports practice compared with collegiate athletes. Competition calendars in Olympians differ from collegiate athletes, with periodic international competitions (eg, World Cups, World Championships) throughout the whole year rather than regular domestic competitions within a shorter season (eg, semester). Olympians outclass most collegiate athletes, and only the best collegiate athletes will have the chance to become Olympians and/or professionals. 12 13 15 In Canada, a primary reason for limited SRC data in Olympic sports is that the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic Sports Institute (COPSI) network only adopted official guidelines in 2018 to standardise care for athletes’ SRC nationwide. 16 17 The second reason could be the absence of a centralised medical structure and surveillance systems, identified as key factors contributing to the under-reporting and underdiagnosis of athletes with an SRC. 18
Among the available evidence on the evolution of SRC management, a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis in athletic populations including children, adolescents and adults indicated that a full return to sport (RTS) could take up to a month but is estimated to require 19.8 days on average (15.4 days in adults), as opposed to the initial expectation of approximately 10.0 days based on studies published prior to 2005. 19 In comparison, studies focusing strictly on American collegiate athletes report median times to RTS of 16 days. 9 20 21 Notably, a recent study of military cadets reported an even longer return to duty times of 29.4 days on average, attributed to poorer access to care and fewer incentives to return to play compared with elite sports. 22 In addition, several modifiers have also been identified as influencing the time to RTS, such as the history of concussions, type of sport, sex, past medical problems (eg, preinjury modifiers), as well as the initial number of symptoms and their severity (eg, postinjury modifiers). 20 22 The evidence regarding the potential influence of sex on the time to RTS has yielded mixed findings in this area. 23–25 In fact, females are typically under-represented in SRC research, highlighting the need for additional studies that incorporate more balanced sample representation across sexes and control for known sources of bias. 26 Interestingly, a recent Concussion Assessment, Research and Education Consortium study, which included a high representation of concussed female athletes (615 out of 1071 patients), revealed no meaningful differences in RTS between females and males (13.5 and 11.8 days, respectively). 27 Importantly, findings in the sporting population suggested that earlier initiation of clinical care is linked to shorter recovery after concussion. 5 28 However, these factors affecting the time to RTS require a more thorough investigation, especially among athletes engaged in Olympic sports who may or may not have equal access to prompt, high-quality care.
Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to provide descriptive statistics among athletes with SRC engaged in both Summer and Winter Olympic sport programmes over a quadrennial, and to assess the influence of recommended guidelines of the COPSI network and the fifth International Consensus Conference on Concussion in Sport on the duration of RTS performance. 16 17 Building on available evidence, the international schedule constraints, variability in resources 14 and high-performance expectation among this elite population, 22 prolonged durations for RTS, compared with what is typically reported (eg, 16.0 or 15.4 days), were hypothesised in Olympians. 3 19 The secondary objective was to more specifically evaluate the impact of access to multidisciplinary care and injury modifiers on the time to RTS. Based on current evidence, 5 7 29 30 the hypothesis was formulated that athletes with earlier multidisciplinary access would experience a faster RTS. Regarding injury modifiers, it was expected that female and male athletes would show similar time to RTS despite presenting sex-specific characteristics of SRC. 31 The history of concussions, the severity of initial symptoms and the number of specialist consults were expected to be positively correlated to the time to RTS. 20 32
A total of 133 athletes (F=72; M=61; mean age±SD: 20.7±4.9 years old) who received medical care at the Institut national du sport du Québec, a COPSI training centre set up with a medical clinic, were included in this cohort study with retrospective analysis. They participated in 23 different Summer and Winter Olympic sports which were classified into six categories: team (soccer, water polo), middle distance/power (rowing, swimming), speed/strength (alpine skiing, para alpine skiing, short and long track speed skating), precision/skill-dependent (artistic swimming, diving, equestrian, figure skating, gymnastics, skateboard, synchronised skating, trampoline) and combat/weight-making (boxing, fencing, judo, para judo, karate, para taekwondo, wrestling) sports. 13 This sample consists of two distinct groups: (1) early access group in which athletes had access to a medical integrated support team of multidisciplinary experts within 7 days following their SRC and (2) late access group composed of athletes who had access to a medical integrated support team of multidisciplinary experts eight or more days following their SRC. 5 30 Inclusion criteria for the study were participation in a national or international-level sports programme 13 and having sustained at least one SRC diagnosed by an authorised healthcare practitioner (eg, physician and/or physiotherapist).
The institute clinic provides multidisciplinary services for care of patients with SRC including a broad range of recommended tests for concussion monitoring ( table 1 ). The typical pathway for the athletes consisted of an initial visit to either a sports medicine physician or their team sports therapist. A clinical diagnosis of SRC was then confirmed by a sports medicine physician, and referral for the required multidisciplinary assessments ensued based on the patient’s signs and symptoms. Rehabilitation progression was based on the evaluation of exercise tolerance, 33 priority to return to cognitive tasks and additional targeted support based on clinical findings of a cervical, visual or vestibular nature. 17 The expert team worked in an integrated manner with the athlete and their coaching staff for the rehabilitation phase, including regular round tables and ongoing communication. 34 For some athletes, access to recommended care was fee based, without a priori agreements with a third party payer (eg, National Sports Federation).
Main evaluations performed to guide the return to sport following sport-related concussion
Data were collected at the medical clinic using a standardised injury surveillance form based on International Olympic Committee guidelines. 35 All injury characteristics were extracted from the central injury database between 1 July 2018 and 31 July 2022. This period corresponds to a Winter Olympic sports quadrennial but also covers 3 years for Summer Olympic sports due to the postponing of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games. Therefore, the observation period includes a typical volume of competitions across sports and minimises differences in exposure based on major sports competition schedules. The information extracted from the database included: participant ID, sex, date of birth, sport, date of injury, type of injury, date of their visit at the clinic, clearance date of unrestricted RTS (eg, defined as step 6 of the RTS strategy with a return to normal gameplay including competitions), the number and type of specialist consults, mechanism of injury (eg, fall, hit), environment where the injury took place (eg, training, competition), history of concussions, history of modifiers (eg, previous head injury, migraines, learning disability, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, anxiety, psychotic disorder), as well as the number of symptoms and the total severity score from the first Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 5 (SCAT5) assessment following SRC. 17
Following a Shapiro-Wilk test, medians, IQR and non-parametric tests were used for the analyses because of the absence of normal distributions for all the variables in the dataset (all p<0.001). The skewness was introduced by the presence of individuals that required lengthy recovery periods. One participant was removed from the analysis because their time to consult with the multidisciplinary team was extremely delayed (>1 year).
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the participant’s demographics, SRC characteristics and risk factors in the total sample. Estimated incidences of SRC were also reported for seven resident sports at the institute for which it was possible to quantify a detailed estimate of training volume based on the annual number of training and competition hours as well as the number of athletes in each sport.
To assess if access to multidisciplinary care modified the time to RTS, we compared time to RTS between early and late access groups using a method based on median differences described elsewhere. 36 Wilcoxon rank sum tests were also performed to make between-group comparisons on single variables of age, time to first consult, the number of specialists consulted and medical visits. Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare count data between groups on variables of sex, history of concussion, time since the previous concussion, presence of injury modifiers, environment and mechanism of injury. Bonferroni corrections were applied for multiple comparisons in case of meaningful differences.
To assess if injury modifiers modified time to RTS in the total sample, we compared time to RTS between sexes, history of concussions, time since previous concussion or other injury modifiers using a method based on median differences described elsewhere. 36 Kaplan-Meier curves were drawn to illustrate time to RTS differences between sexes (origin and start time: date of injury; end time: clearance date of unrestricted RTS). Trajectories were then assessed for statistical differences using Cox proportional hazards model. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were employed for comparing the total number of symptoms and severity scores on the SCAT5. The association of multilevel variables on return to play duration was evaluated in the total sample with Kruskal-Wallis rank tests for environment, mechanism of injury, history of concussions and time since previous concussion. For all subsequent analyses of correlations between SCAT5 results and secondary variables, only data obtained from SCAT5 assessments within the acute phase of injury (≤72 hours) were considered (n=65 SRC episodes in the early access group). 37 Spearman rank correlations were estimated between RTS duration, history of concussions, number of specialist consults and total number of SCAT5 symptoms or total symptom severity. All statistical tests were performed using RStudio (R V.4.1.0, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing). The significance level was set to p<0.05.
The study population is representative of the Canadian athletic population in terms of age, gender, demographics and includes a balanced representation of female and male athletes. The study team consists of investigators from different disciplines and countries, but with a predominantly white composition and under-representation of other ethnic groups. Our study population encompasses data from the Institut national du sport du Québec, covering individuals of all genders, ethnicities and geographical regions across Canada.
The patients or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of our research.
During the 4-year period covered by this retrospective chart review, a total of 160 SRC episodes were recorded in 132 athletes with a median (IQR) age of 19.1 (17.8–22.2) years old ( table 2 ). 13 female and 10 male athletes had multiple SRC episodes during this time. The sample had a relatively balanced number of females (53.8%) and males (46.2%) with SRC included. 60% of the sample reported a history of concussion, with 35.0% reporting having experienced more than two episodes. However, most of these concussions had occurred more than 1 year before the SRC for which they were being treated. Within this sample, 33.1% of participants reported a history of injury modifiers. Importantly, the median (IQR) time to first clinic consult was 10.0 (1.0–20.0) days and the median (IQR) time to RTS was 34.0 (21.0–63.0) days in this sample ( table 3 ). The majority of SRCs occurred during training (56.3%) rather than competition (33.1%) and were mainly due to a fall (63.7%) or a hit (31.3%). The median (IQR) number of follow-up consultations and specialists consulted after the SRC were, respectively, 9 (5.0–14.3) and 3 (2.0–4.0).
Participants demographics
Sport-related concussion characteristics
Among seven sports of the total sample (n=89 SRC), the estimated incidence of athletes with SRC was highest in short-track speed skating (0.47/1000 hours; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.6), and lower in boxing, trampoline, water polo, judo, artistic swimming, and diving (0.24 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.5), 0.16 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.5), 0.13 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.2), 0.11 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.2), 0.09 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) and 0.06 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.1)/1000, respectively ( online supplemental material ). Furthermore, most athletes sustained an SRC in training (66.5%; 95% CI 41.0 to 92.0) rather than competition (26.0%; 95% CI 0.0 to 55.0) except for judo athletes (20.0% (95% CI 4.1 to 62.0) and 80.0% (95% CI 38.0 to 96.0), respectively). Falls were the most common injury mechanism in speed skating, trampoline and judo while hits were the most common injury mechanism in boxing, water polo, artistic swimming and diving.
Access to care.
The median difference in time to RTS was 19 days (95% CI 9.3 to 28.7; p<0.001) between the early (26 (IQR 17.0–38.5) days) and late (45 (IQR 27.5–84.5) days) access groups ( table 3 ; figure 1 ). Importantly, the distribution of SRC environments was different between both groups (p=0.008). The post hoc analysis demonstrated a meaningful difference in the distribution of SRC in training and competition environments between groups (p=0.029) but not for the other comparisons. There was a meaningful difference between the groups in time to first consult (p<0.001; 95% CI −23.0 to −15.0), but no meaningful differences between groups in median age (p=0.176; 95% CI −0.3 to 1.6), sex distribution (p=0.341; 95% CI 0.7 to 2.8), concussion history (p=0.210), time since last concussion (p=0.866), mechanisms of SRC (p=0.412), the presence of modifiers (p=0.313; 95% CI 0.3 to 1.4) and the number of consulted specialists (p=0.368; 95% CI −5.4 to 1.0) or medical visits (p=0.162; 95% CI −1.0 to 3.0).
Time to return to sport following sport-related concussion as a function of group’s access to care and sex. Outliers: below=Q1−1.5×IQR; above=Q3+1.5×IQR.
The median difference in time to RTS was 6.5 days (95% CI −19.3 to 5.3; p=0.263; figure 1 ) between female (37.5 (IQR 22.0–65.3) days) and male (31.0 (IQR 20.0–48.0) days) athletes. Survival analyses highlighted an increased hazard of longer recovery trajectory in female compared with male athletes (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.4 to 0.7; p=0.052; figure 2A ), which was mainly driven by the late (HR 1.8; 95% CI 1.8 to 0.6; p=0.019; figure 2C ) rather than the early (HR 1.1; 95% CI 1.1 to 0.9; p=0.700; figure 2B ) access group. Interestingly, a greater number of female athletes (n=15) required longer than 100 days for RTS as opposed to the male athletes (n=6). There were no meaningful differences between sexes for the total number of symptoms recorded on the SCAT5 (p=0.539; 95% CI −1.0 to 2.0) nor the total symptoms total severity score (p=0.989; 95% CI −5.0 to 5.0).
Time analysis of sex differences in the time to return to sport following sport-related concussion in the (A) total sample, as well as (B) early, and (C) late groups using survival curves with 95% confidence bands and tables of time-specific number of patients at risk (censoring proportion: 0%).
SRC modifiers are presented in table 2 , and their influence on RTP is shown in table 4 . The median difference in time to RTS was 1.5 days (95% CI −10.6 to 13.6; p=0.807) between athletes with none and one episode of previous concussion, was 3.5 days (95% CI −13.9 to 19.9; p=0.728) between athletes with none and two or more episodes of previous concussion, and was 2 days (95% CI −12.4 to 15.4; p=0.832) between athletes with one and two or more episodes of previous concussion. The history of concussions (none, one, two or more) had no meaningful impact on the time to RTS (p=0.471). The median difference in time to RTS was 4.5 days (95% CI −21.0 to 30.0; p=0.729) between athletes with none and one episode of concussion in the previous year, was 2 days (95% CI −10.0 to 14.0; p=0.744) between athletes with none and one episode of concussion more than 1 year ago, and was 2.5 days (95% CI −27.7 to 22.7; p=0.846) between athletes with an episode of concussion in the previous year and more than 1 year ago. Time since the most recent concussion did not change the time to RTS (p=0.740). The longest time to RTS was observed in the late access group in which athletes had a concussion in the previous year, with a very large spread of durations (65.0 (IQR 33.0–116.5) days). The median difference in time to RTS was 3 days (95% CI −13.1 to 7.1; p=0.561) between athletes with and without other injury modifiers. The history of other injury modifiers had no meaningful influence on the time to RTS (95% CI −6.0 to 11.0; p=0.579).
Preinjury modifiers of time to return to sport following SRC
Positive associations were observed between the time to RTS and the number of initial symptoms (r=0.3; p=0.010; 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5) or initial severity score (r=0.3; p=0.008; 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5) from the SCAT5. The associations were not meaningful between the number of specialist consultations and the initial number of symptoms (r=−0.1; p=0.633; 95% CI −0.3 to 0.2) or initial severity score (r=−0.1; p=0.432; 95% CI −0.3 to 0.2). Anecdotally, most reported symptoms following SRC were ‘headache’ (86.2%) and ‘pressure in the head’ (80.0%), followed by ‘fatigue’ (72.3%), ‘neck pain’ (70.8%) and ‘not feeling right’ (67.7%; online supplemental material ).
This study is the first to report descriptive data on athletes with SRC collected across several sports during an Olympic quadrennial, including athletes who received the most recent evidence-based care at the time of data collection. Primarily, results indicate that the time to RTS in athletes engaged in Summer and Winter Olympic sports may require a median (IQR) of 34.0 (21.0–63.0) days. Importantly, findings demonstrated that athletes with earlier (≤7 days) access to multidisciplinary concussion care showed faster RTS compared with those with late access. Time to RTS exhibited large variability where sex had a meaningful influence on the recovery pathway in the late access group. Initial symptoms, but not history of concussion, were correlated with prognosis in this sample. The main reported symptoms were consistent with previous studies. 38 39
This study provides descriptive data on the impact of SRC monitoring programmes on recovery in elite athletes engaged in Olympic sports. As hypothesised, the median time to RTS found in this study (eg, 34.0 days) was about three times longer than those found in reports from before 2005, and 2 weeks longer than the typical median values (eg, 19.8 days) recently reported in athletic levels including youth (high heterogeneity, I 2 =99.3%). 19 These durations were also twice as long as the median unrestricted time to RTS observed among American collegiate athletes, which averages around 16 days. 9 20 21 However, they were more closely aligned with findings from collegiate athletes with slow recovery (eg, 34.7 days) and evidence from military cadets with poor access where return to duty duration was 29.4 days. 8 22 Several reasons could explain such extended time to RTS, but the most likely seems to be related to the diversity in access among these sports to multidisciplinary services (eg, 10.0 median days (1–20)), well beyond the delays experienced by collegiate athletes, for example (eg, 0.0 median days (0–2)). 40 In the total sample, the delays to first consult with the multidisciplinary clinic were notably mediated by the group with late access, whose athletes had more SRC during international competition. One of the issues for athletes engaged in Olympic sports is that they travel abroad year-round for competitions, in contrast with collegiate athletes who compete domestically. These circumstances likely make access to quality care very variable and make the follow-up of care less centralised. Also, access to resources among these sports is highly variable (eg, medal-dependant), 14 and at the discretion of the sport’s leadership (eg, sport federation), who may decide to prioritise more or fewer resources to concussion management considering the relatively low incidence of this injury. Another explanation for the longer recovery times in these athletes could be the lack of financial incentives to return to play faster, which are less prevalent among Olympic sports compared with professionals. However, the stakes of performance and return to play are still very high among these athletes.
Additionally, it is plausible that studies vary their outcome with shifting operational definitions such as resolution of symptoms, return to activities, graduated return to play or unrestricted RTS. 19 40 It is understood that resolution of symptoms may occur much earlier than return to preinjury performance levels. Finally, an aspect that has been little studied to date is the influence of the sport’s demands on the RTS. For example, acrobatic sports requiring precision/technical skills such as figure skating, trampoline and diving, which involve high visuospatial and vestibular demands, 41 might require more time to recover or elicit symptoms for longer times. Anecdotally, athletes who experienced a long time to RTS (>100 days) were mostly from precision/skill-dependent sports in this sample. The sports demand should be further considered as an injury modifier. More epidemiological reports that consider the latest guidelines are therefore necessary to gain a better understanding of the true time to RTS and impact following SRC in Olympians.
In this study, athletes who obtained early access to multidisciplinary care after SRC recovered faster than those with late access to multidisciplinary care. This result aligns with findings showing that delayed access to a healthcare practitioner delays recovery, 19 including previous evidence in a sample of patients from a sports medicine clinic (ages 12–22), indicating that the group with a delayed first clinical visit (eg, 8–20 days) was associated with a 5.8 times increased likelihood of a recovery longer than 30 days. 5 Prompt multidisciplinary approach for patients with SRC is suggested to yield greater effectiveness over usual care, 3 6 17 which is currently evaluated under randomised controlled trial. 42 Notably, early physical exercise and prescribed exercise (eg, 48 hours postinjury) are effective in improving recovery compared with strict rest or stretching. 43 44 In fact, preclinical and clinical studies have shown that exercise has the potential to improve neurotransmission, neuroplasticity and cerebral blood flow which supports that the physically trained brain enhanced recovery. 45 46 Prompt access to specialised healthcare professionals can be challenging in some contexts (eg, during international travel), and the cost of accessing medical care privately may prove further prohibitive. This barrier to recovery should be a priority for stakeholders in Olympic sports and given more consideration by health authorities.
The estimated incidences of SRC were in the lower range compared with what is reported in other elite sport populations. 1 2 However, the burden of injury remained high for these sports, and the financial resources as well as expertise required to facilitate athletes’ rehabilitation was considerable (median number of consultations: 9.0). Notably, the current standard of public healthcare in Canada does not subsidise the level of support recommended following SRC as first-line care, and the financial subsidisation of this recommended care within each federation is highly dependent on the available funding, varying significantly between sports. 14 Therefore, the ongoing efforts to improve education, prevention and early recognition, modification of rules to make the environments safer and multidisciplinary care access for athletes remain crucial. 7
This unique study provides multisport characteristics following the evolution of concussion guidelines in Summer and Winter Olympic sports in North America. Notably, it features a balance between the number of female and male athletes, allowing the analysis of sex differences. 23 26 In a previous review of 171 studies informing consensus statements, samples were mostly composed of more than 80% of male participants, and more than 40% of these studies did not include female participants at all. 26 This study also included multiple non-traditional sports typically not encompassed in SRC research, feature previously identified as a key requirement of future epidemiological research. 47
However, it must be acknowledged that potential confounding factors could influence the results. For example, the number of SRC detected during the study period does not account for potentially unreported concussions. Nevertheless, this figure should be minimal because these athletes are supervised both in training and in competition by medical staff. Next, the sport types were heterogeneous, with inconsistent risk for head impacts or inconsistent sport demand which might have an influence on recovery. Furthermore, the number of participants or sex in each sport was not evenly distributed, with short-track speed skaters representing a large portion of the overall sample (32.5%), for example. Additionally, the number of participants with specific modifiers was too small in the current sample to conclude whether the presence of precise characteristics (eg, history of concussion) impacted the time to RTS. Also, the group with late access was more likely to consist of athletes who sought specialised care for persistent symptoms. These complex cases are often expected to require additional time to recover. 48 Furthermore, athletes in the late group may have sought support outside of the institute medical clinic, without a coordinated multidisciplinary approach. Therefore, the estimation of clinical consultations was tentative for this group and may represent a potential confounding factor in this study.
This is the first study to provide evidence of the prevalence of athletes with SRC and modifiers of recovery in both female and male elite-level athletes across a variety of Summer and Winter Olympic sports. There was a high variability in access to care in this group, and the median (IQR) time to RTS following SRC was 34.0 (21.0–63.0) days. Athletes with earlier access to multidisciplinary care took nearly half the time to RTS compared with those with late access. Sex had a meaningful influence on the recovery pathway in the late access group. Initial symptom number and severity score but not history of concussion were meaningful modifiers of recovery. Injury surveillance programmes targeting national sport organisations should be prioritised to help evaluate the efficacy of recommended injury monitoring programmes and to help athletes engaged in Olympic sports who travel a lot internationally have better access to care. 35 49
Patient consent for publication.
Not applicable.
This study involves human participants and was approved by the ethics board of Université de Montréal (certificate #2023-4052). Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.
The authors would like to thank the members of the concussion interdisciplinary clinic of the Institut national du sport du Québec for collecting the data and for their unconditional support to the athletes.
Supplementary data.
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
X @ThomasRomeas
Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. The ORCID details have been added for Dr Croteau.
Contributors TR, FC and SL were involved in planning, conducting and reporting the work. François Bieuzen and Magdalena Wojtowicz critically reviewed the manuscript. TR is guarantor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The research methodology is an important section of any research paper or thesis, as it describes the methods and procedures that will be used to conduct the research. It should include details about the research design, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations.
In this tutorial paper, we will use the term methodological study to refer to any study that reports on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary or secondary research-related reports (such as trial registry entries and conference abstracts). In the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the use of terms related to ...
Literature review as a research methodology: An overview ...
Methodology Section for Research Papers
What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips
Research methodology can be defined as the systematic framework that guides researchers in designing, conducting, and analyzing their investigations. It encompasses a structured set of processes, techniques, and tools employed to gather and interpret data, ensuring the reliability and validity of the research findings.
Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper
Your Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Good Research ...
A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and ...
Research Methodology Guide: Writing Tips, Types, & ...
What Is Research Methodology? Definition + Examples
What is Research Methodology? Definition, Types, and ...
What is research methodology? [Update 2024]
Research methodology indicates the logic of development of the process used to generate theory that is procedural framework within which the research is conducted (Remenyi et al. 1998). It ...
How To Write The Methodology Chapter (With Examples)
How to Write a Research Methodology in 4 Steps | Scribbr 🎓
Research Methodology Example (PDF + Template)
Research Methods | Definitions, Types, Examples
What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips - Scribbr
Organizing Academic Research Papers: 6. The Methodology
What Is a Research Design | Types, Guide & ...
The methodology section of research paper is always presented in a scientific paper after the introduction and before results, discussion, and conclusion. This structure is also used in other types of research papers, such as a thesis, dissertation, or research proposal. However, depending on the scope and purpose of an academic paper ...
NOTE: An annotated bibliography IS NOT a required element of this course's assignment, however at least creating a spreadsheet outlining the key points of the articles researched for your position paper can be key to highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of your arguments. It's a good way to keep all the information straight without having ...
Surgical gesture recognition is an important research direction in the field of computer-assisted intervention. Currently, research on surgical gesture recognition primarily focuses on robotic surgery, with a lack of studies in traditional surgery, particularly open surgery. Therefore, this study established a dataset simulating open surgery for research on surgical gesture recognition in the ...
Types of Research Designs Compared | Guide & Examples
Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research.
Objectives This cohort study reported descriptive statistics in athletes engaged in Summer and Winter Olympic sports who sustained a sport-related concussion (SRC) and assessed the impact of access to multidisciplinary care and injury modifiers on recovery. Methods 133 athletes formed two subgroups treated in a Canadian sport institute medical clinic: earlier (≤7 days) and late (≥8 days ...