a primary research article

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Primary Research | Definition, Types, & Examples

Primary Research | Definition, Types, & Examples

Published on January 14, 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on January 12, 2024.

Primary research is a research method that relies on direct data collection , rather than relying on data that’s already been collected by someone else. In other words, primary research is any type of research that you undertake yourself, firsthand, while using data that has already been collected is called secondary research .

Primary research is often used in qualitative research , particularly in survey methodology, questionnaires, focus groups, and various types of interviews . While quantitative primary research does exist, it’s not as common.

Table of contents

When to use primary research, types of primary research, examples of primary research, advantages and disadvantages of primary research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions.

Primary research is any research that you conduct yourself. It can be as simple as a 2-question survey, or as in-depth as a years-long longitudinal study . The only key is that data must be collected firsthand by you.

Primary research is often used to supplement or strengthen existing secondary research. It is usually exploratory in nature, concerned with examining a research question where no preexisting knowledge exists. It is also sometimes called original research for this reason.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Primary research can take many forms, but the most common types are:

• Surveys and questionnaires
• Observational studies
• Interviews and focus groups

Surveys and questionnaires collect information about a group of people by asking them questions and analyzing the results. They are a solid choice if your research topic seeks to investigate something about the characteristics, preferences, opinions, or beliefs of a group of people.

Surveys and questionnaires can take place online, in person, or through the mail. It is best to have a combination of open-ended and closed-ended questions, and how the questions are phrased matters. Be sure to avoid leading questions, and ask any related questions in groups, starting with the most basic ones first.

Observational studies are an easy and popular way to answer a research question based purely on what you, the researcher, observes. If there are practical or ethical concerns that prevent you from conducting a traditional experiment , observational studies are often a good stopgap.

There are three types of observational studies: cross-sectional studies , cohort studies, and case-control studies. If you decide to conduct observational research, you can choose the one that’s best for you. All three are quite straightforward and easy to design—just beware of confounding variables and observer bias creeping into your analysis.

Similarly to surveys and questionnaires, interviews and focus groups also rely on asking questions to collect information about a group of people. However, how this is done is slightly different. Instead of sending your questions out into the world, interviews and focus groups involve two or more people—one of whom is you, the interviewer, who asks the questions.

There are 3 main types of interviews:

• Structured interviews ask predetermined questions in a predetermined order.
• Unstructured interviews are more flexible and free-flowing, proceeding based on the interviewee’s previous answers.
• Semi-structured interviews fall in between, asking a mix of predetermined questions and off-the-cuff questions.

While interviews are a rich source of information, they can also be deceptively challenging to do well. Be careful of interviewer bias creeping into your process. This is best mitigated by avoiding double-barreled questions and paying close attention to your tone and delivery while asking questions.

Alternatively, a focus group is a group interview, led by a moderator. Focus groups can provide more nuanced interactions than individual interviews, but their small sample size means that external validity is low.

Primary research can often be quite simple to pursue yourself. Here are a few examples of different research methods you can use to explore different topics.

Primary research is a great choice for many research projects, but it has distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of primary research

Advantages include:

• The ability to conduct really tailored, thorough research, down to the “nitty-gritty” of your topic . You decide what you want to study or observe and how to go about doing that.
• You maintain control over the quality of the data collected, and can ensure firsthand that it is objective, reliable , and valid .
• The ensuing results are yours, for you to disseminate as you see fit. You maintain proprietary control over what you find out, allowing you to share your findings with like-minded individuals or those conducting related research that interests you for replication or discussion purposes.

Disadvantages of primary research

Disadvantages include:

• In order to be done well, primary research can be very expensive and time consuming. If you are constrained in terms of time or funding, it can be very difficult to conduct your own high-quality primary research.
• Primary research is often insufficient as a standalone research method, requiring secondary research to bolster it.
• Primary research can be prone to various types of research bias . Bias can manifest on the part of the researcher as observer bias , Pygmalion effect , or demand characteristics . It can occur on the part of participants as a Hawthorne effect or social desirability bias .

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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.

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

The 3 main types of primary research are:

Exploratory research aims to explore the main aspects of an under-researched problem, while explanatory research aims to explain the causes and consequences of a well-defined problem.

There are several methods you can use to decrease the impact of confounding variables on your research: restriction, matching, statistical control and randomization.

In restriction , you restrict your sample by only including certain subjects that have the same values of potential confounding variables.

In matching , you match each of the subjects in your treatment group with a counterpart in the comparison group. The matched subjects have the same values on any potential confounding variables, and only differ in the independent variable .

In statistical control , you include potential confounders as variables in your regression .

In randomization , you randomly assign the treatment (or independent variable) in your study to a sufficiently large number of subjects, which allows you to control for all potential confounding variables.

A questionnaire is a data collection tool or instrument, while a survey is an overarching research method that involves collecting and analyzing data from people using questionnaires.

When conducting research, collecting original data has significant advantages:

• You can tailor data collection to your specific research aims (e.g. understanding the needs of your consumers or user testing your website)
• You can control and standardize the process for high reliability and validity (e.g. choosing appropriate measurements and sampling methods )

However, there are also some drawbacks: data collection can be time-consuming, labor-intensive and expensive. In some cases, it’s more efficient to use secondary data that has already been collected by someone else, but the data might be less reliable.

Cite this Scribbr article

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.

George, T. (2024, January 12). Primary Research | Definition, Types, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 23, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/primary-research/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, observer bias | definition, examples, prevention, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Understanding research and critical appraisal

• Introduction
• Secondary research

What is primary research?

Quantitative research study designs, qualitative research study designs, mixed methods research study designs.

• Critical appraisal of research papers
• Useful terminology
• Further reading and helpful resources

Primary research articles provide a report of individual, original research studies, which constitute the majority of articles published in peer-reviewed journals. All primary research studies are conducted according to a specified methodology, which will be partly determined by the aims and objectives of the research.

The following sections offer brief summaries of some of the common quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods study designs you may encounter. 

Randomised Controlled Trial

A randomised controlled trial (RCT) is a study where participants are randomly allocated to two or more groups. One group receives the treatment that is being tested by the study (treatment or experimental group), and the other group(s) receive an alternative, which is often the current standard treatment or a placebo (control or comparison group). The nature of the control used should always be specified.

An RCT is a good study choice for determining the effectiveness of an intervention or treatment, or for comparing the relative effectiveness of different interventions or treatments. If well implemented, the randomisation of participants in RCTs should ensure that the groups differ only in their exposure to treatment, and that differences in outcomes between the groups are probably attributable to the treatment being studied.

In crossover randomised controlled trials, participants receive all of the treatments and controls being tested in a random order. This means that participants receive one treatment, the effect of which is measured, and then "cross over" into the other treatment group, where the effect of the second treatment (or control) is measured.

RCTs are generally considered to be the most rigorous experimental study design, as the randomisation of participants helps to minimise confounding and other sources of bias.

Cohort study

A cohort study identifies a group of people and follows them over a period of time to see who develops the outcome of interest to the study. This type of study is normally used to look at the effect of suspected risk factors that cannot be controlled experimentally – for example, the effect of smoking on lung cancer.

Also sometimes called longitudinal studies, cohort studies can be either prospective, that is, exposure factors are identified at the beginning of a study and the study population is followed into the future, or retrospective, that is, medical records for the study population are used to identify past exposure factors.

Cohort studies are useful in answering questions about disease causation or progression, or studying the effects of harmful exposures.

Cohort studies are generally considered to be the most reliable observational study design. They are not as reliable as RCTs, as the study groups may differ in ways other than the variable being studied.

Other problems with cohort studies are that they require a large sample size, are inefficient for rare outcomes, and can take long periods of time.

Case-Control Study

A case-control study compares a group of people with a disease or condition, against a control population without the disease or condition, in order to investigate the causes of particular outcomes. The study looks back at the two groups over time to see which risk factors for the disease or condition they have been exposed to.

Case-control studies can be useful in identifying which risk factors may predict a disease, or how a disease progresses over time. They can be especially useful for investigating the causes of rare outcomes.

Case-control studies can be done quickly, and do not require large groups of subjects. However, their reliance on retrospective data which may be incomplete or unreliable (owing to subject ability to accurately recall information such as the appearance of a symptom) can be a difficulty.

Cross-Sectional Study

A cross-sectional study collects data from the study population at one point in time, and considers the relationships between characteristics. Also  sometimes called surveys or prevalence studies.

Cross-sectional studies are generally used to study the prevalence of a risk factor, disease or outcome in a chosen population.

Because cross-sectional studies do not look at trends or changes over time, they cannot establish cause and effect between exposures and outcomes.

Case Series / Case Reports

A case series is a descriptive study of a group of people, who have either received the same treatment or have the same disease, in order to identify characteristics or outcomes in a particular group of people.

Case series are useful for studying rare diseases or adverse outcomes, for illustrating particular aspects of a condition, identifying treatment approaches, and for generating hypotheses for further study.

A case report provides a study of an individual, rather than a group.

Case series and case reports have no comparative control groups, and are prone to bias and chance association.

Expert opinion

Expert opinion draws upon the clinical experience and recommendations of those with established expertise on a topic.

Grounded theory

Grounded theory studies aim to generate theory in order to explain social processes, interactions or issues. This explanatory theory is grounded in, and generated from, the research participant data collected.

Research data typically takes the form of interviews, observations or documents. Data is analysed as it is collected, and is coded and organised into categories which inform the further collection of data, and the construction of theory. This cycle helps to refine the theory, which evolves as more data is gathered.

Phenomenology

A phenomenological study aims to describe the meaning(s) of the lived experience of a phenomenon. Research participants will have some common experience of the phenomenon under examination, but will differ in their precise individual experience, and in other personal or social characteristics.

Research data is typically in the form of observations, interviews or written records, and its analysis sets out to identify common themes in the participants' experience, while also highlighting variations and unique themes.

Ethnography

Ethnography is the study of a specific culture or cultural group, where the researcher seeks an insider perspective by placing themselves as a participant observer within the group under study.

Data is typically formed of observations, interviews and conversation. Ethnography aims to offer direct insight into the lives and the experiences of the group or the culture under study, examining its beliefs, values, practices and behaviours.

A case study offers a detailed description of the experience of an individual, a family, a community or an organisation, often with the aim of highlighting a particular issue. Research data may include documents, interviews and observations.

Content analysis

Content analysis is used to explore the occurrence, meanings and relationships of words, themes or concepts within a set of textual data. Research data might be drawn from any type of written document(s). Data is coded and categorised, with the aim of revealing and examining the patterns and the intentions of language use within the data set.

Narrative inquiry

A narrative inquiry offers in depth detail of a situation or experience from the perspective of an individual or small groups. Research data usually consists of interviews or recordings, which is presented as a structured, chronological narrative. Narrative inquiry studies often seek to give voice to individuals or populations whose perspective is less well established, or not commonly sought.

Action research

Action research is a form of research, commonly used with groups, where the participants take a more active, collaborative role in producing the research. Studies incorporate the lived experiences of the individuals, groups or communities under study, drawing on data which might include observation, interviews, questionnaires or workshops.

Action research is generally aimed at changing or improving a particular context, or a specific practice, alongside the generation of theory.

Explanatory sequential design

In an explanatory sequential study, emphasis is given to the collection and analysis of quantitative data, which occurs during the first phase of the study. The results of this quantitative phase inform the subsequent collection of qualitative data in the next phase.

Analysis of the resultant qualitative data is then used to 'explain' the quantitative results, usually serving to contextualise these, or to otherwise enhance or enrich the initial findings.

Exploratory sequential design

In an exploratory sequential study, the opposite sequence to that outlined above is used. In this case, qualitative data is emphasised, with this being collected and analysed during the first phase of the study. The results of this qualitative phase inform the subsequent collection of quantitative data in the next phase.

The quantitative data can then be used to define or to generalise the qualitative results, or to test these results on the basis of theory emerging from the initial findings.

Convergent design

In a convergent study, qualitative and quantitative data sets are collected and analysed simultaneously and independently of one another.

Results from analysis of both sets of data are brought together to provide one overall interpretation; this combination of data types can be handled in various ways, but the objective is always to provide a fuller understanding of the phenomena under study. Equal emphasis is given to both qualitative and quantitative data in a convergent study.

• << Previous: Secondary research
• Next: Critical appraisal of research papers >>
• Last Updated: Mar 26, 2024 4:38 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sgul.ac.uk/researchdesign

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Primary Research

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Note:  This page offers a brief primer on primary research. For more information, see our dedicated set of pages on this topic .

Research isn't limited to finding published material on the Internet or at the library. Many topics you choose to write on may not already have been covered by an abundance of sources and hence may require a different kind of approach to conducting research. This approach involves collecting information directly from the world around you and can include interviews, observations, surveys, and experiments. These strategies are collectively called  primary research.

For example, if you are writing about a problem specific to your school or local community, you may need to conduct primary research. You may be able to find  secondary sources  (such as those found at the library or online) on the more general topic you are pursuing, but may not find specifics on your school or town. To supplement this lack of sources, you can collect data on your own.

For example, Briel wants to research a proposed smoking ban in public establishments in Lafayette, Indiana. Briel begins by going to the library and then searching online. She finds information related to smoking bans in other cities around the United States, but only a few limited articles from the local newspaper on the ban proposed in Lafayette. To supplement this information, she decides to survey twenty local residents to learn what they think of the proposed smoking ban. She also decides to interview two local business owners to learn how they think the ban may affect their businesses. Finally, Briel attends and observes a town hall meeting where the potential ban is discussed.

Many different types of primary research exist. Some common types used in writing classes and beyond include:

• Interviews:  A conversation between two or more people in which one person (the interviewer) asks a series of questions to another person or persons (the interviewee). See also our page on interviewing .
• Surveys and questionnaires:  A process of gathering specific information from people in a systematic way with a set series of questions. Survey questions usually have pre-specified or short responses. See also our introduction to writing surveys .
• Observations:  Careful viewing and documenting of the world around you. See also our page on performing observations .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wellcome Open Res
• PMC11391192

Changing the paradigm for primary research dissemination

Ashley farley.

1 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, USA

Kazuhiro Hayashi

2 National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Tokyo, Japan

Eva Hnatkova

3 National Library of Technology (NTK), University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Czech Republic

Hans de Jonge

4 Dutch Research Council, NWO, The Haque, The Netherlands

Heather Joseph

5 SPARC, Washington DC, USA

Robert Kiley

6 cOAlition S, Strasbourg, France

7 Open Research Central, London, UK

Rebecca Lawrence

8 F1000 Research Ltd, London, UK

Associated Data

No data are associated with this article.

The predominant research publishing system is not equitable by design, nor optimised to advance research to create knowledge and ultimately to benefit society. Open Research Central (ORC) was created to foster the re-imagination of the research dissemination system to facilitate trust, transparency and equitable participation. In five years of operation, before dissolving, the non-profit organisation produced outputs and learnings valuable to the development of a responsible research dissemination system. We are sharing our experience in the hope that it will provide others who share the same vision and goals with useful materials to build on. We think that there remains a need for global, cross-stakeholder exploration to build collective understanding of research validation and dissemination and to pilot solutions. However, as this article will explore, enabling and supporting the development of such a collective voice and consequent action is a challenging endeavour in the current landscape and funding environment.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors. Publication in Wellcome Open Research does not imply endorsement by Wellcome.

Introduction

Open Research Central (ORC) operated as a non-profit organisation governed by a Board of Directors from 2018–2023. The Board was expanded in 2020 to comprise representatives of different stakeholder groups from across the scholarly system, who came together with a shared interest in open research and an ambition to improve the way research findings are validated and disseminated.

The ORC vision was to contribute to creating a world in which research outputs are openly disseminated and responsibly evaluated to maximise their benefits to society. To foster the re-imagination of the research dissemination system to facilitate trust, collaboration, and transparency, the Board created a set of five core principles that underpin the responsible dissemination of original research ( Figure 1 ). These principles provided a critical foundation and framework for ORC and can be freely used and built on by others working in this area.

ORC’s aim was to build the movement by advocating for an increase in adoption of the principles via open practices, such as post-publication transparent peer review, inclusion of data and code availability statements in articles and dissemination of all components of a research project. The original plan was to validate those practices through certification of compliant content and to make the content visible through indexing on an ORC platform. At the same time, developing a community of members to identify and overcome barriers to responsible research dissemination ( Figure 2 ).

ORC received funding from Wellcome and F1000 Research Ltd to employ a part-time Programme Director for an 18-month period. The role of the Programme Director was to support the full range of activities required for ORC to achieve its mission. Small organisations face a high burden of organisational administration just to exist and to employ someone. F1000 made this phase feasible by employing and hosting the Programme Director on behalf of ORC and by providing and maintaining the website gratis. The intention of the ORC Board was that after an initial phase to achieve sustainability, these functions would transfer fully to ORC.

In 2023, after deep consideration of different options, the Board concluded that the set-up of ORC wasn’t right for the goals and took the decision to dissolve. Here, we describe the challenges that led to that decision along with our positive experiences of working on ORC for the benefit of other organisations working in this space. We also make a case for subsequent work that we believe is critical to achieving responsible research dissemination systems.

Fast-evolving landscape

During the period that ORC operated, there was significant growth in new initiatives, with policy developments and an expansion of the options available to researchers to openly publish their research outputs.

Specifically, we have witnessed unprecedented international consensus on the benefits of open science with the release and ratification of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science 1 . We’ve also seen movement towards increased transparency in publishing processes 2 , 3 , a rise in the use of preprints 4 and new models separating the validation of research from dissemination ( e.g. PREreview , Peer Community In and Review Commons ).

The conversation has moved beyond open access and open research to the wider challenges in creating responsible research dissemination systems. Building on the foundation laid by the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment ( DORA ), we now have active efforts to reform research assessment in Europe ( CoARA ), the United States ( HELIOS ), and Latin America ( FOLEC - CLACSO ). Equitable participation in knowledge sharing has been brought squarely into focus, tackling barriers such as article-based charges to publish 5 , 6 .

Along with this flurry of positive activity, however, we have experienced instances of polarity and mistrust. High-profile cases reported by publishers have uncovered that the processes designed to uphold research integrity are being manipulated on a wide scale through papermills, peer review rings and other malpractice 7 . Community members have come together to tackle the problem 8 but the crisis in research integrity has exacerbated a long-standing distrust of the power and motivations of commercial publishers. At the same time, calls by the EU for its members to create nonprofit open access models for publication of research involving public funds have fuelled tension and uncertainty about working relationships between public organisations and commercial publishers 9 .

Revenue models for transformational change

To drive uptake in adoption of the ORC principles by both providers and the researcher community, one of ORC’s original goals was to certify content that met the ORC principles and to index it on a platform. When we derived criteria from the principles to assess a group of providers of innovative journals and platforms, there were very few offering a model that would adhere to all the requirements. Part of the thinking around financial sustainability was to build a membership revenue model from those whose content was indexed in the platform but it soon became clear that not enough venues were eligible to build such a model. Those that were eligible were typically from smaller start-ups or relatively unfunded groups.

We debated the balance between reducing the bar to include more of the community, risking making less progress and differentiating ourselves less from other activities, versus adopting a position that really pushed for more transformational change to try to accelerate progress but struggling for sustainability. Ultimately, with equity as a core principle, we didn’t want to create a membership structure that would exclude many groups.

We also recognised that inclusion criteria based on specific elements of open research was too reductive and risked entrenching inequalities. We needed to support a diverse publication landscape that met the needs of different scholarly communities.

Alternative mechanisms that we explored came up against the same challenge of finding a sustainable revenue model for emergent work with a small core community. For example, we considered developing a collective of the pioneers in responsible research dissemination. Under this approach we would provide a space for the innovators breaking boundaries in research validation and dissemination and for the infrastructure providers, funders and institutions actively wanting to drive a shift.

The innovators told us they needed amplification of voice; validation; cross-stakeholder trust-building; help to contend with infrastructure such as indexing not designed for their different methods of versioning and transparent peer review; support to become sustainable. They were confronted with a huge industry, with entrenched rules and norms. They needed outside support to create an environment where new systems that put the focus on open and equitable access to research outputs could flourish.

Sustainable revenue models remain challenging even for successful and embedded open scholarly infrastructure 10 . The DOAJ carried out a sustainability review which demonstrated that open scholarly infrastructures need to carve out distinct value propositions that resonate with different communities in order to maximise opportunities for external support. Revenue implicitly can’t be made from content and a mix of mechanisms is often pursued with organisations operating on stretched budgets 11 .

Grant support for transformational change

Ultimately, the aim of ORC to support emergent practices and organisations was not revenue-generating. F1000 provided short-term funding and hosting support. However, in an environment of increased sensitivity to the roles of commercial publishers, it raised questions from the community about the perceived independence of the organisation from F1000 and concerns that it would hamper wider support and engagement.

Alternative grant opportunities were challenging, which is often the case for early-stage organisations where funding is required for exploratory work ahead of having more concrete outcomes. ORC’s model didn’t fit with the strategy or focus areas of many funders and it was challenging to make a strong case without being able to demonstrate a clear value proposition. Grant application processes often request a route to sustainability. For transformational change, that requires you to say how the work will thrive in the prevailing system, while simultaneously working to change that system; it’s not easy. Grant funding cycles can be more than one-year long, which was hard for ORC to join up with the initial period of support.

Recommendations for progress in responsible research dissemination

The experiences of ORC have helped us identify the piece we believe is missing for sustainable progress in responsible research dissemination. Specifically, responsible research dissemination systems will only be created when institutions, funders, societies, publishers, infrastructure service providers and the researcher community work together. It requires global representative governance and participation, in a neutral space, with consideration for power dynamics and equality of voice. The aim is a common understanding of what validation and dissemination need to achieve, leading to suggested solutions and real tangible action in testing those solutions in the real world. It all needs to be securely funded and adequately resourced ( Figure 3 ).

As part of this work, we need to hold space for trust to be built between stakeholders. They need to understand each other’s different values, motives and challenges, with each group acknowledging the barriers they currently create. Participants need to be willing to step into a challenging collaborative process and be invested in finding solutions.

ORC demonstrated the value of holding space for detailed conversation between stakeholders. We made great progress and it took time to develop that valuable thought-partnership amongst the members of the Board. With the relationship rooted in practical work ( e.g. developing the principles) the members combined their different perspectives from funders, governmental organisations, infrastructures, publishers and researchers to achieve shared understanding and new outlooks.

The value was also demonstrated by the Open Science Policy Platform 12 , which ran from 2016 to 2020. A collection of the major stakeholders was convened to advise the European Commission on how to develop its Open Science Policy. The different parts of the system were represented around the table at the same level, which enabled discussion about some of the most challenging issues. Although everyone was supportive in principle about the benefits of open research, it was clear that it meant different things to different stakeholders and there were challenges which were not recognised or understood between each other.

A pragmatic approach to finding solutions is needed, given the complexity of the research ecosystem with its many actors, global differences and embedded cultures. The work needs to take account of related issues in the wider research ecosystem, such as research assessment reform, without trying to solve everything. These are example questions to begin to address:

• What are the principles of research validation and dissemination? What do those processes need to achieve and how do we need to work together across the community to deliver that most effectively?
• How do research validation and dissemination interact with the wider research ecosystem? For example, how do cultures of hierarchy and prestige in research interact with validation and dissemination? How does global research collaboration interact with funding, institutional and research infrastructures that are organised at national level?
• Is there a tension between standardisation and inclusivity? How do we prevent standards from entrenching inequalities?

Finally, the process needs to result in action. There is a powerful opportunity for collaborative testing of new ideas, moving beyond discussion to achieve real progress. We need willing parties to come together and pilot new approaches, then expand the parts that work and reflect on the ones that don’t. This segment needs to take account of how challenging the environment is for initiatives that go against the status quo, providing the pilots with the stability and support they need to have a chance of succeeding.

Conclusions

The mission of ORC to re-imagine the research dissemination system remains relevant. The current landscape brings many challenges and inequalities to enabling research to address global challenges at the rate required by society. Activity in this space is increasingly cross-stakeholder and moving beyond open research to focus on the most important challenges including equitable participation. However, there is a continuing risk that stakeholders may move further apart in an environment of uncertainty and mistrust.

ORC’s experience of attempting to envision a collaborative, sustainable mechanism, while living its values, can be seen as an opportunity to learn. Securing a sustainable revenue stream was certainly impacted by the challenge of finding a clear and distinct value proposition that resonated with a large-enough group, in a fast-paced environment. But ultimately, the aim of ORC to support emergent practices and organisations simply wasn’t revenue-generating. The grant funding landscape is extremely competitive and hard to navigate without a plan for sustainability. The provision of resources from commercial publishers to support this work currently brings motives and neutrality into question.

Responsible research dissemination systems will only be created when institutions, funders, societies, publishers, infrastructures and the researcher community work together. It requires global representative governance and participation, in a neutral space, with consideration for power-dynamics and secure funding. We need to hold space and time for trust to be built between stakeholders, aiming for a unified understanding of what validation and dissemination need to achieve. That unified understanding is a precursor for the right systems and the right pilot solutions to emerge. The work needs to be pragmatic, given the complexity of the landscape, and pilot solutions need to be adequately supported.

[version 1; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Funding Statement

This material is based on work funded by Wellcome (Grant number: 223223/Z/21/Z) and F1000 Research Ltd.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data availability

Author contributions.

All authors contributed to the conceptualization, draft preparation, review and editing of this work.

• Version 1. Wellcome Open Res. 2024; 9: 37.

Reviewer response for version 1

Morufu olalekan raimi.

1 0Department of Environmental Management and Toxicology, Faculty of Sciences, Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State, Nigeria

The theme of your open letter titled "Changing the Paradigm for Primary Research Dissemination" is indeed important and especially for contexts of Research dissemination, this theme should indeed receive greater attention and to that end I would like to thank you for bringing together this writeup on this issue.

However, the paper is challenged on many fronts with regard to the implementation of this larger objective:

• The article title can be recasted to reflect ORC. For example, “Lessons from Open Research Central: Changing the Paradigm for Primary Research Dissemination” This would give potential readers a clearer understanding of the content and its unique focus, particularly for search engines and citation contexts. Hence, it would make the subject matter clearer and attract the right audience.

Rationale (1-2 sentences) - why was the research needed?

Objective (1 sentence)- what were you trying to provide to meet that need

Method (s) (up to 3 sentences) - briefly summarize what and which parameters were measured.

Results (up to 4-5 sentences)- what did you find? Please add some data to demonstrate the findings.

Conclusions/Recommendations (1 sentence) - so what should be done with or in response to your findings?

• Keywords are appropriate.
• Novelty of the work is established but could be improved.
• The manuscript is generally well-written, but simplifying some of the more technical terms would make it accessible to a broader audience, including those who may not be as familiar with scholarly publishing trends.
• Broaden the scope of the manuscript by addressing how the insights gained from ORC can apply to a wider range of research dissemination models, including those not primarily focused on open access. A discussion on how other fields could benefit from these lessons would enhance its relevance.
• The manuscript acknowledges that ORC dissolved but does not provide a deep reflection on the specific reasons for its failure. It lacks critical analysis of what exactly went wrong and what could have been done differently.
• The discussion on sustainability needs to be expanded, the discussion on alternative funding strategies and sustainability models need to be emphasized upon. Consider providing examples of successful open access initiatives that have overcome similar challenges. This could help other organizations facing similar issues.
• Expand on the global context of research dissemination, addressing how initiatives like ORC could navigate diverse research environments. Discuss the challenges and opportunities for global partnerships, particularly in regions with underdeveloped research infrastructures.
• Provide more emphasis on the innovative approaches ORC attempted or could have explored. Detailing novel methods of research dissemination that were tested (e.g., open peer review models, data and code sharing practices) would offer readers a more comprehensive understanding of what was attempted and what could be improved.
• The recommendations need to be improved upon as it lacks specificity and actionable insights. While it highlights important issues, it doesn’t offer concrete, step-by-step guidance for other organizations that might attempt similar initiatives.
• Ensure all citations are thoroughly checked for accuracy. While the referencing is robust, ensure that they are current and fully integrated with the discussion points.
• There is enough new content in this paper to distinguish it from other works.
• The submission provides enough new material for journal indexing.

This manuscript presents an important reflection on the challenges and opportunities in transforming research dissemination. By addressing the points above, particularly focusing on specificity in recommendations and expanding the discussion on sustainability, it will be even more impactful.

Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations?

Is the Open Letter written in accessible language?

Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow?

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail?

Reviewer Expertise:

Biostatistics and Research Methodology, Environmental Epidemiology, Health Economics, Pollution Control Management, Hydrogeochemistry, Groundwater Pollution, Groundwater Quality, Health Risk Assessment, Water Pollution and Management, Water and Gender, Chemicals & Health, Environmental Public Health Policy & Practice, Environmental Justice & Health Equity, Noise & Health, Carbon Accounting Services, Environmental & Health Impact Assessments, Community based participatory Research, Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation, Oil Spills Clean up and Remediation, Environmental Toxicology & Health, Emissions Control and Respiratory Protection.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Roslina Othman

1 Kulliyyah of Information and Communication Technology, International Islamic University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

This paper discusses five core principles to foster trust, collaboration, and transparency in the research dissemination system, providing a foundation for future research. ORC aimed to promote responsible research dissemination through open practices like transparent peer review and data availability statements. 

However, in 2023, the ORC Board decided to dissolve due to its unsuitable setup for its goals. Research integrity is being manipulated through malpractice and papermills, leading to polarity and mistrust among community members.  Sustainable revenue models remain challenging even for successful and embedded open scholarly infrastructure. Responsible research dissemination systems will only be created when institutions, funders, societies, publishers, infrastructure service providers and the researcher community work together. 

There is a need for willing parties to collaborate and pilot new techniques, then expand on what works and reflect on what doesn't. Responsible research dissemination systems will only be created when institutions, funders, societies, publishers, infrastructures and the researcher community work together. 

Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions? Partly. The paper does not mention the terms "open humanities" and "open scholarship," even though it mentions their concepts.

Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow? Partly.

"The work needs to be pragmatic" needs to be elaborated.

Information retrieval, bibliometrics, open science, knowledge management, future studies

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Moumita Koley

1 DST-Centre for Policy Research, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

This open letter offers valuable insights into the Open Research Central (ORC) initiative, which aimed to reimagine scholarly communication by fostering trust, transparency, and equitable participation in the system. It also shows why ORC ultimately could not fulfill its promise and had to be dissolved.

However, the principles outlined by ORC remain highly relevant, emphasizing the need for such values to be adhered to in order to build a better scientific communication system. Organizations like the International Science Council and Plan S also endorse similar principles. On the operational side, the original aims of ORC were difficult to achieve, and apart from many other reasons, the revenue-generation part was difficult.  

The letter gives us a compelling example of why a more collaborative approach among all stakeholders is essential for driving meaningful change in scientific publishing. With numerous new initiatives emerging, synergy is crucial to ensure their sustainability and to present a value-added proposition for the research community. This will help convince researchers that the current inequitable and inefficient system needs to be replaced.

Overall, the letter adds value for all stakeholders advocating for a better system.

Science policy, open science, research evaluation

Mikael Laakso

1 Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland

This letter is anchored in a post-mortem reflection of the founding, operation, and dissolution of Open Research Central (ORC).

The ORC was a non-profit organisation that was operational between 2018-2023 and had ambitious goals of pioneering and promoting progressive open practices for open research dissemination. It is well known that the landscape of scholarly communication is currently undergoing a lot of change, offering new opportunities for research dissemination, and the letter does a good job at describing how the ORC was designed to be aligned and support many of these emerging practices. In the letter the perspective is primarily looking from the inside out, giving valuable insight to the decisions taken and the challenges faced as time went on, both inside and outside the organisation.

The letter is well-written, easy to follow and understand, and integrates a useful set of external references into its description that broadens up the perspective from a narrow narrative into something that is woven into the broader context of different types of change happening in the research dissemination landscape. It includes a balanced description of strategic goals, organizational/administrative aspects, and a very meaningful discussion on sustainability/funding which I am sure many other initiatives in this space will be able to relate to. A strength of the letter is how it sheds light on the path forward for work and practices in this area, which is both inspiring and informative. I also think the discussion about balancing the strictness of requirements for eligible members/outputs for progressive initiatives that are intended to scale and grow equitably is also valuable.

My only suggestion for the authors to optionally reconsider if making a revision is the title, as I think having the ORC mentioned within it would make it more directly describe what the the text is actually about and guide interested readers to it. This would improve its function e.g.  within reference lists of future article citing it, or search engines that do not display the full abstract, to see more clearly what the text is about. The focus is of course broader than just the ORC but I think that is still this letters strongest unique part and could be highlighted more.

I think it is a great idea that lessons learned from initiatives like this are made public so that they can fuel new iterations and ideas that continue on from where work once ended.

Scholarly communication, Open science, Publishing, Scientometrics, Meta-research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

More Americans – especially young adults – are regularly getting news on TikTok

A small but growing share of U.S. adults are regularly getting news on TikTok. In fact, since 2020, no social media platform we’ve studied has seen faster growth in the share of Americans who regularly turn to it for news, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis.

In just four years, the share of adults who say they  regularly get news from TikTok has grown about fivefold, from 3% in 2020 to 17% in 2024.

TikTok, primarily known for short-form video sharing, is especially popular among teens – 63% of whom report ever using the platform – and young adults .

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand the ways Americans get news in a digital age. We surveyed 10,658 U.S. adults from July 15 to Aug. 4, 2024. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), a group of people recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses who have agreed to take surveys regularly. This kind of recruitment gives nearly all U.S. adults a chance of selection. Surveys were conducted either online or by telephone with a live interviewer. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other factors. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and the survey  methodology .

In the past, we have conducted similar research about Americans’ use of social media for news. This survey continues to explore the same topics, but our approach has evolved to use  slightly different question wording, starting in our 2020 survey . As a result, some of these measures cannot be directly compared with findings prior to 2020. These changes in question wording reflect the Center’s efforts to  improve the way we measure news consumption .

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. This is the latest report in Pew Research Center’s ongoing investigation of the state of news, information and journalism in the digital age, a research program funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Young adults also stand out when it comes to turning to TikTok for news. Today, 39% of adults under 30 say they regularly get news there, compared with much smaller shares of adults ages 30 to 49 (19%), 50 to 64 (9%) and 65 and older (3%).

News consumption is also trending upward when looking at TikTok users, specifically. Around half of TikTok users (52%) now say they regularly get news there, up from 43% last year and just 22% in 2020. TikTok users are now more likely to get news from TikTok than Facebook users are to get news from Facebook. Still, TikTok users are less likely than users of X (formerly Twitter) to get news on the site.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published Nov. 15, 2023. Here are the  questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its  methodology .

• Social Media
• Social Media & the News

Rebecca Leppert is a copy editor at Pew Research Center .

Katerina Eva Matsa is a director of news and information research at Pew Research Center .

Many Israelis say social media content about the Israel-Hamas war should be censored

Whatsapp and facebook dominate the social media landscape in middle-income nations, germans stand out for their comparatively light use of social media, majorities in most countries surveyed say social media is good for democracy, social media fact sheet, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center