The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
Evidence that is sound in a journal can still be unusable for a ministry: too slow, too narrow, written for a different question or silent on uncertainty. Knowledge translation is the set of practices that bring research and institutional decisions together, from synthesis and briefing to co-production and embedded advisers. This page sets out how translation works, where it distorts evidence, and how its quality and uptake can be judged without confusing citation with influence.
Risk knowledge translation · Science-policy panel · Synthesis SY-78
| Reduced losses | 9 | Moderate | Benefit |
| Faster recovery | 6 | Low | Unclear |
| Equity of access | 4 | Very low | Unclear |
Fig.Evidence synthesis workspace. Design wireframe with placeholder names and illustrative values, not a record or a live system.
Knowledge translation is the set of practices that bring research and decisions together: evidence syntheses, policy briefs, co-produced projects and researchers embedded in public bodies. It can distort evidence by stripping uncertainty or answering a different question, and citation in a policy document does not show influence on the decision.
For risk knowledge translation, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, true-colour imagery and night lights with clouds now from NASA GIBS, framed on Europe; 3 further NASA layers wait in the list.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
Hazards and exposure, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For risk knowledge translation, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, true-colour imagery and night lights with clouds now from NASA GIBS, framed on Europe; 3 further NASA layers wait in the list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
Making evidence useful to institutions. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Researchers answer the questions their field rewards; institutions need answers framed by mandate, budget cycle and legal duty. The gap lies in framing and timing, not only in communication.
Each step from paper to synthesis to brief to statement tends to drop caveats and ranges. A cautious estimate becomes a confident line, and the decision rests on a certainty the evidence never claimed.
Institutions draw on evidence that supports positions already held, and advocates package evidence for a cause. Uptake then reflects interests as much as quality, which citation counts alone cannot show.
Researchers rarely learn how their evidence was used or why it was set aside. Without that loop, translation practice does not improve and the same mismatches recur in the next decision.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Evidence synthesis | A structured review that collects, appraises and combines studies on one question, such as a systematic review, rapid review or evidence map. |
| Policy brief | A short document that sets out evidence on a policy question, the options it supports and the uncertainty behind them, written for decision-makers. |
| Co-production | Research designed and carried out jointly by researchers and the people who will use or be affected by its results. |
| Research uptake | The use of research in decisions, practice or further research, which citation counts capture only in part. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Policy documents citing research on a theme | count per period | annual | Policy document citation indexes | REPORTED |
| Evidence syntheses commissioned by public bodies | count per year | annual | Procurement and commissioning records | OFFICIAL |
| Time from synthesis request to delivery | weeks | per request | Commissioning records | REPORTED |
| Briefs that state uncertainty and limits | percent of briefs reviewed | annual | Content review of briefs | ESTIMATED |
| Embedded researcher and fellowship placements | count of placements | annual | Programme records | REPORTED |
| Open access status of cited evidence | percent of cited works | annual | Bibliometric records | OBSERVED |
| Evidence statements in regulatory impact assessments | presence per assessment | per decision | Published impact assessments | OFFICIAL |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Overton policy document index | Links between documents from governments and agencies and the research they cite | Commercial licence |
| OpenAlex | Open access status and citation links for cited works | Open, CC0 |
| Cochrane Library and Campbell Collaboration | Systematic reviews with standard methods and plain-language summaries | Free to read; reuse terms per review |
| Parliamentary science office briefings | Briefings written for legislators, such as POST notes and EPTA network reports | Open Parliament Licence or terms per office |
| OECD Global Science Forum reports | Comparative analysis of science advice and the use of research across member countries | Free to read, OECD terms |
| INGSA resources | Case studies and practice guidance on science advice and knowledge brokerage | Free to read, terms per resource |
| Published regulatory impact assessments | Statements of the evidence used in individual regulatory decisions | Open government terms, by jurisdiction |
Research Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Chief scientific advisers and departmental science units | How to commission rapid evidence for a decision under time pressure | Comparative practice on rapid synthesis; known failure modes when uncertainty is compressed |
| Parliamentary science and technology offices | What a briefing must state about confidence and disagreement | Translation practice from other legislatures; checklists on uncertainty language |
| Research funders | Whether to fund knowledge brokerage, fellowships or co-production alongside research | Evaluations of brokerage schemes, with their stated limitations |
| Ministries and regulators | How to record which evidence a decision relied on and which it set aside | Examples of evidence statements in impact assessments; dialogue records on their use |
Research consistently finds that ongoing relationships between researchers and users matter more than any single product.
Evidence is used when it arrives as decisions are being shaped, not after.
Findings that ignore local institutions, resources and values are rarely used, or are misapplied.
Translation works best as a portfolio rather than a single product. Each instrument below has a place, and each carries a characteristic way of distorting evidence if it is used alone.
Structured synthesis of all relevant studies. Limits: full reviews are slow; rapid reviews trade rigour for speed and should say so.
Short, structured summaries for decision-makers. Limits: compression can lose important caveats.
Ranges, confidence language and scenarios, grounded in probability and statistics. Limits: audiences interpret verbal probability terms very differently.
People or units that work between research and institutions. Limits: often underfunded and dependent on individuals.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.