Systematic review identifies factors hindering research productivity, proposing remedies and highlighting open science benefits.
This paper conducts a systematic review of the literature on research productivity to understand its conceptualization, the state of the debate on research productivity decline, and associated hindering factors and remedies. We first categorize the literature into three frameworks: Scientometric, Innovation, Societal Impact. We then focus on the Innovation framework literature, where concerns about declining research productivity are more acute. Based on this literature, we develop a taxonomy of factors hindering research productivity and of the remedies proposed to address them. The taxonomy provides a lens to understand the mechanisms affecting research productivity, and the conditions under which they operate. Our analysis reveals that inefficient R&D routines and misaligned incentives are the primary hindering factors and a key focus for remedies. Finally, we examine the contribution of open science practices to addressing factors influencing research productivity, finding they have potential to improve R&D routines and research governance, thereby promoting knowledge exploration and radical innovation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arza et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: