GRF · Research Nexus
Institutional knowledge gaps
Some risks are under-studied because no institution is responsible for asking about them: they fall between disciplines, ministries or borders, lack a funder, or concern people with little voice in priority setting. This page sets out how knowledge gaps arise and persist, how they can be mapped and tracked, and which institutions set the research agendas that could close them.
How the work runs.
Evidence synthesis workspace
Institutional knowledge gaps · Science-policy panel · Synthesis SY-56
- Records found2705
- Screened1841Active
- Included35Normal
- Reviewer agreement0.66kappaNormal
Systematic review
- QuestionPICO
- Protocolregistered
- Search6 databases
- Screentwo reviewers
- Extractform v2
- Appraisecertainty
- Briefpolicy owner
Certainty of evidence
| Reduced losses | 6 | Moderate | Benefit |
| Faster recovery | 6 | Low | Unclear |
| Equity of access | 5 | Very low | Unclear |
Fig.Evidence synthesis workspace: example names and illustrative values, not a record or a live system.
Institutional knowledge gaps: how the risk develops.
Research agenda and unresolved questions. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
No owner, no question
Risks that span sectors, such as cascades through infrastructure or slow environmental change, have no single mandate holder. Without an owner no one commissions research, and absence of evidence is read as absence of risk.
Priorities follow funding
Research agendas reflect where money and markets are. Diseases, hazards and regions with less purchasing power receive less research, and the gap widens as capacity follows funding.
Data gaps compound
Where monitoring is thin, studies are fewer, models are less tested and the case for future funding is weaker. The lack of data becomes self-reinforcing across successive funding rounds.
Questions go unrecorded
Unresolved questions raised in assessments, dialogues and inquiries are seldom tracked. They are rediscovered after each crisis instead of being carried into the next research agenda.
How institutional knowledge gaps is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Who holds which role
The actors around institutional knowledge gaps: who decides, who implements, who finances and who brings knowledge and voice.
What is measured, and how well.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government budget allocations for R&D by socio-economic objective | national currency, constant prices | annual | Government budget data under the Frascati Manual | Published statistics |
| Research output by risk theme and region | count of outputs | annual | Bibliometric topic classification | ESTIMATED |
| Knowledge gaps stated in assessments | count per assessment | per assessment cycle | IPCC, IPBES and national assessments | REPORTED |
| Stated gaps with funded follow-up | percent of stated gaps | periodic | Funder award records matched to gaps | ESTIMATED |
| Priority-setting exercises with public participation | count per period | periodic | Funder and ministry records | REPORTED |
| Evidence and gap map cells without studies | share of cells | per map | Evidence and gap maps | ESTIMATED |
Where the evidence comes from.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| OECD government budget allocations for R&D | Public R&D budgets by socio-economic objective | Open, attribution under OECD terms |
| Eurostat government budget allocations for R&D | Public R&D budgets by objective for European countries | Free reuse, attribution |
| IPCC and IPBES assessment reports | Knowledge gaps identified by authors in each assessment | Free to read, terms per body |
| OpenAlex | Research output by topic, region and institution | Open, CC0 |
| James Lind Alliance priority setting partnerships | Published method and priorities from partnerships of patients, carers and clinicians | Free to read |
| Campbell Collaboration evidence and gap maps | Where studies exist and where they do not, by intervention and outcome | Open access, attribution |
| UNESCO Science Report | National research priorities and capacity | Free to read, CC BY-SA IGO |
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Ministries responsible for science and research councils | Which gaps to name as national research priorities | Gap registers; budget allocations by objective; assessment gaps not followed up |
| Public and philanthropic funders | Whether to fund research on risks that have no institutional owner | Gap maps and records of where questions were raised and not taken up |
| Intergovernmental assessment bodies | How to record knowledge gaps so they can be tracked between assessment cycles | Comparative practice on stating and following up gaps |
| National statistical and monitoring agencies | Where to extend observation to close data gaps | Records of gaps that trace back to missing data |
Outputs this topic produces
- A register of unresolved questions raised in dialogue, with where each was raised
- Comparative briefs on research priority-setting methods
- Methods seminars on evidence and gap mapping
- Dialogue records with funders on gaps that no institution owns
What a research agenda process asks.
- What do institutions need to know to make better decisions about this risk, and do not?
- Is the gap a lack of research, a lack of synthesis or a failure of access?
- Which gaps matter most, judged by the decisions they affect and the harm of not knowing?
- Who is best placed to fill each gap?
Why gaps persist.
Some gaps exist because the research is hard: rare events, long time scales, complex interactions. Others exist because no discipline owns the question, because research funding follows academic rather than institutional priorities, or because the people who face the problem are not in contact with the people who could study it.
Many apparent gaps are not gaps in knowledge but in synthesis or access: the evidence exists but is scattered, paywalled or written for specialists. Distinguishing these cases matters, because the remedy for a synthesis gap is very different from the remedy for a research gap.
Why now: after-action reviews repeatedly find that the knowledge an institution needed existed somewhere else. Research Nexus convenes institutions to map what they need to know and do not, records the gaps, and offers the most material ones as questions for the annual Universe mandate.
How gaps are identified and prioritised.
- 01
Evidence gap maps
Visual maps of where research exists and where it does not. Limits: reflect indexed literature.
- 02
Priority-setting partnerships
Structured processes in which researchers and users jointly rank questions. Limits: outcomes depend on who takes part.
- 03
Value of information analysis
Estimating how much a decision would improve with better information, using probability and statistics. Limits: requires a well-defined decision.
- 04
Dialogue records
Recording questions that recur in dialogues without answers. Limits: depend on who participates.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 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
Questions and answers.
How is a knowledge gap identified?
Why do some gaps persist?
Does Research Nexus set the research agenda?
Can an institution submit a knowledge gap?
Will Research Nexus commission research to fill a gap?
How is a knowledge gap different from a synthesis gap?
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.