GRF · Research Nexus
Methods and critical debate
The methods Research Nexus relies on to inform policy and governance decisions: comparative governance, policy analysis, foresight and exercises with institutions, with the mandates they serve and their limits.
Methods and critical debate on the record.
- 01FieldsResearch and evidence, Governance and institutions
- 02STEM methods3 canonical methods applied
- 03Topics8 subject pages
- 04Counterparts7 platforms in shared fields
- 05PublisherThe Global Risks Forum
The methods in use.
- 01Policy, institutional and decision scienceComparing science advice systems · Mapping integrity proceduresApplied here
- 02Probability and statisticsBuilding bibliometric indicators · Detecting selective reportingApplied here
- 03Causal inference and impact evaluationEvaluating funder policy changes · Assessing knowledge brokerage schemesApplied here
Methods for turning many studies into one usable answer.
| Method | When it fits | Main limit |
|---|---|---|
| Systematic review with meta-analysis | Many comparable quantitative studies | Heterogeneity across settings |
| Realist review | Policies that work differently in different contexts | Judgement-heavy |
| Rapid evidence assessment | Decision needed within weeks | Narrower search |
| Evidence and gap maps | Showing where evidence exists and where it does not | Describes, does not conclude |
Causal questions use causal inference; uncertainty language follows probability and statistics.
How the process runs.
Process
Methods and critical debate: PRISMA 2020 review reporting
PRISMA 2020 is a reporting guideline for systematic reviews; the steps follow its checklist, not a mandated sequence, and no Nexus document adopts it.
01 Plan
- 01Registration and protocolRecord · The review teamThe guideline asks for registration details, access to the protocol and any amendments.
- 02Eligibility criteriaRecord · The review teamThe guideline asks for the inclusion and exclusion criteria and how studies were grouped.
02 Find and select
- 03Search: sources and strategiesStep · The review teamThe guideline asks for the information sources and the full search strategies. It does not fix which sources are used.
- 04Selection of studiesStep · The review teamThe guideline asks how studies were judged eligible, including how many reviewers screened. It does not fix the number of reviewers.
- 05Flow diagramRecordThe flow diagram shows the number of records found, the number of studies included and the reasons for exclusion.
03 Analyse
- 06Data collectionStep · The review teamThe guideline asks how data were collected from reports and which data items were sought.
- 07Risk of biasStep · The review teamThe guideline asks for the methods and tools used to assess risk of bias.
- 08SynthesisModel · The review teamThe guideline asks for the effect measures and the synthesis methods. It does not prescribe meta-analysis.
- 09Certainty of evidenceStep · The review teamThe guideline asks for the methods used to assess certainty, and reports the result per outcome. It does not name a grading scale.
04 Report
- 10Review reportRecordThe guideline helps authors report why the review was done, what they did and what they found.
ReportsOutline of an externally published reporting guideline, not a Nexus process and not a record of operation. PRISMA 2020 mainly covers reviews of intervention effects. No Nexus page names it. Every programme is at service level R0.
How uncertainty is reported.
- 01
State assumptions
Each analysis lists its assumptions and the data it depends on.
- 02
Quantify where possible
Ranges and confidence are reported alongside central estimates.
- 03
Validate and compare
Models are checked against observations and, where possible, against other models.
- 04
Publish limits
What an analysis cannot show is stated beside what it can.
Where this page’s references lead.
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
Questions and answers.
Are the methods open?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium’s quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. 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.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.