Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39901226›Full record

ReviewBMC biology2025

Poor hypotheses and research waste in biology: learning from a theory crisis in psychology.

Shinichi Nakagawa, David W Armitage, Tom Froese, Yefeng Yang, Malgorzata Lagisz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. To Be FAIR: Theory Specification Needs an Update.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shinichi NakagawaDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, CW 405, Biological Sciences Building, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E9, Canada. shinichi.nakagawa@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-7765-5182
David W ArmitageIntegrative Community Ecology Unit, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST), 1919-1 Tancha, Onna, Okinawa, 904-0495, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5677-0501
Tom FroeseEmbodied Cognitive Science Unit, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST), 1919-1 Tancha, Onna, Okinawa, 904-0495, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9899-5274
Yefeng YangEvolution & Ecology Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8610-4016
Malgorzata LagiszTheoretical Sciences Visiting Program (TSVP), Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University, 1919-1 Tancha, Onna, Kunigami District, Okinawa, 904-0412, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3993-6127

Funding

Australian Research Council DP210100812Canada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada CERC-2022-00074
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While psychologists have extensively discussed the notion of a "theory crisis" arising from vague and incorrect hypotheses, there has been no debate about such a crisis in biology. However, biologists have long discussed communication failures between theoreticians and empiricists. We argue such failure is one aspect of a theory crisis because misapplied and misunderstood theories lead to poor hypotheses and research waste. We review its solutions and compare them with methodology-focused solutions proposed for replication crises. We conclude by discussing how promoting inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility (IDEA) in theoretical biology could contribute to ameliorating breakdowns in the theory-empirical cycle.

Indexed as

BiologyPsychologyHumansCredibility revolutionQuestionable research practiceReplication crisisSORTEETeam science

Identifiers

PMID39901226
PMCPMC11792729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.