Talking about the quality and reliability of research: 5 webinar takeaways

In an era where the world needs trusted, impactful science, the quality and reliability of research, and how we communicate it, has never been more important.

That urgency was at the heart of Talking about the Quality and Reliability of Evidence, a recent webinar hosted by Elsevier in partnership with Sense about Science.

The conversation brought together leading thinkers, Richard Horton (Editor-in-Chief, The Lancet), Quarraisha Abdool Karim (Associate Scientific Director, CAPRISA), and Alejandra Paniagua-Avila (Postdoctoral Fellow, Columbia University), with moderator Tracey Brown, Director of Sense about Science.

Here are five key insights to help researchers elevate the credibility of their work and amplify its impact:

1. Positioning your research within the bigger picture:

One of the central messages, echoed by both Richard Horton and Quarraisha Abdool Karim, was the vital importance of situating your research findings within the landscape of existing knowledge. Richard outlined three essential questions that every paper must answer:

• What was the evidence before you completed your study?

• What is the added value of your study?

• What is your interpretation of the totality of available evidence?

The Lancet has formalized this with its “Research in Context” panels. These brief summaries of existing evidence help frame a new study's findings within the broader body of knowledge. They help readers understand what is already known about a topic and how the new research adds to that knowledge, assessing its significance and validity making context-setting as critical as the abstract itself. It's an approach that approach not only clarifies the significance of your findings, but also helps prevent misinterpretation and misuse.

Tip: Before submitting, ensure your manuscript explicitly addresses these contextual questions. When communicating with non-specialists or policy makers, frame your findings as part of a narrative—telling the “story” of what’s new and why it matters.

2. Transparency and humility matter, so over-communicate methods and embrace uncertainty

Reliable science is transparent science. Both Richard and Alejandra emphasized that full disclosure of methods, protocols, data sources, ethical approvals, and even the use of AI tools is essential, not just for the sake of reproducibility, but also for building trust. Just as important, Richard argued, is humility about the limitations of your work. Science is provisional; uncertainty is inherent and should be acknowledged, not concealed. As Quarraisha shared, being candid about what is (and isn’t) known, especially in fast-moving or early-stage research, is a marker of credibility.

Tip: Don’t shy away from robustly describing limitations and uncertainties in your discussion sections, in public communications, and with policy makers. It strengthens, rather than undermines, your authority.

3. Peer review is useful but not infallible

Peer review remains a cornerstone of scientific quality control said Richard, it is not a guarantee of validity or “truth.” Instead, it’s a process of negotiation, testing acceptability, refining claims, and seeking consensus within the community. Ultimately, only independent replication can truly validate a result.

Tip: Treat peer review as a dialogue, not a rubber stamp. Be receptive to feedback and avoid overselling your findings before they’ve stood the test of time and scrutiny.

4. Communicate with integrity, avoid hype, speculation, and overreach

In an age of information overload and rampant misinformation, clarity and restraint in communicating findings are as crucial as methodological rigor. Quarraisha recounted the perils of hype, including overstating preliminary or limited results, as well as the temptation to speculate beyond the evidence when questioned by media or policy makers. These practices undermine trust, fuel confusion, and can have real-world consequences.

Instead, she advocated for:

• Conveying evidence, not personal opinion

• Explaining uncertainty meaningfully

• Staying tightly focused on what’s known, not what you wish or guess could happen next

Tip: Whether drafting a press release, speaking to a journalist, or briefing a policy maker, stick to the facts and resist pressure to sensationalize or oversimplify. Your integrity is your most valuable currency.

5. Build Relationships and Trust: Understand Your Audience

Effective research communication is about more than simply disseminating information; it’s about building ongoing, trust-based relationships with stakeholders. Quarraisha highlighted that trust is the cornerstone of effective engagement with policy makers—and that means listening as much as informing, conveying evidence in a neutral, agenda-free manner, and being honest about the limitations of current knowledge. Likewise, Alejandra underscored the importance of adapting communications to the needs and contexts of different communities, especially when working across cultures or with vulnerable groups.

Tip: Tailor your communication style and level of detail to your audience. For policy makers and the public, distill the “nub of the issue.” For scientific peers, ensure depth and transparency. Always keep the long-term goal of building trust and advancing shared understanding front of mind.

Watch the full webinar

All three speakers agreed that the health of science, and its ability to advance progress for all, depends on the quality, transparency, and integrity of research and on our ability as a community to communicate it honestly and clearly. As Richard cautioned, every incentive in academia and publishing must shift toward quality and impact, not mere quantity.

As global challenges grow more complex, the stakes for trustworthy science have never been higher. By embracing these principles, researchers can help ensure that their work is not just published, but trusted, used, and valuable to the world.

For more guidance and resources, visit the Elsevier Researcher Academy.