New Elsevier report suggests 63% of R&D organizations have made important decisions with flawed data

R&D teams are confident in their evidence, yet report making decisions based on flawed or incomplete data, according to Elsevier’s Corporate R&D of the Future report, a global survey of more than 1,000 R&D leaders, managers and researchers at R&D-led corporations.

More than three quarters (76%) of respondents are confident in the quality of their data. Yet 63% of those who answered say their organization has at some point made an important R&D decision using data or evidence later found to be inaccurate, incomplete or outdated. About half (51%) say their organization has had to make an important R&D decision before all the evidence was in.

The survey findings show AI is moving into R&D decision-making, but expectations are running ahead of use: 81% expect AI to fundamentally transform how R&D decisions are made over the next five years, yet under half (47%) say it is used regularly in their organization’s R&D function today.

Stuart Whayman, President, Corporate Markets at Elsevier, commented, “Confidence is not the same as accuracy. R&D teams are under pressure to decide faster, and often before all the evidence is in. Confidence keeps them moving, but it can't make up for evidence that is incomplete, outdated or unreliable. AI will raise the stakes, because it will amplify whatever evidence it is given, good or bad. The advantage will go to the organizations that can bring their evidence together and trace and verify what sits behind their decisions.”

Key findings

The report looks at how R&D teams use data and evidence to make decisions, where that evidence comes from, how well it is connected, and how AI is being applied and trusted.

• Access is not enough. 78% have access to the third-party evidence they need, yet more than half (56%) of those still report at least one barrier. Across all respondents, the top barriers are scattered sources (42%), slow finding and synthesis (32%) and not knowing what evidence exists (30%).

  • Respondents in APAC (90%) are most likely to have access to third-party evidence, compared to 73% in North America and 77% in Europe.

• AI is common, but not yet routine. 47% say AI is used regularly in their organization’s R&D, and a further 40% say it is being piloted. Personally, most respondents use AI across a range of R&D activities, led by data analysis (71%), literature search (70%), and competitive intelligence (70%).

• Trusted evidence is seen as the AI advantage. 86% believe organizations that combine AI with trusted, high-quality evidence will outperform those that do not.

• Compliance, ease of use and accuracy are among the top factors that would increase willingness to use AI. 55% select AI that complies with laws and regulations, 54% AI that is easy to use and integrates with workflows, and 54% AI trained for factual accuracy and safety.

  • Compliance is a bigger draw in Europe. Among all respondents, 64% in Europe say they would be more willing to use AI if it complies with laws and regulations.

• Scaling AI divides opinion. 48% say implementing AI at scale will be a significant challenge. The priorities selected most often for the next five years are building AI skills across the organization (65%), turning data and evidence into actionable insights (62%), and tailoring AI to organizational knowledge and workflows (59%).

  • Scaling is seen as a challenge more in North America. Among all respondents, 56% in North America say implementing AI at scale will be a significant challenge, against 50% in Europe and 34% in APAC.

• General-purpose tools lead for literature search. Of those answering, 48% use general-purpose AI tools such as ChatGPT or Copilot for literature search, against 23% who use specialist scientific AI tools. For data analysis and modeling, specialist tools are the most common choice.

Elsevier’s research also reveals regional differences in how R&D leaders and managers view their evidence and AI:

_{Bases (R&D leaders and managers): North America n=183, Europe n=234, APAC n=275. Don’t know answers are excluded, so bases vary slightly by question. South America (n=34) and the Middle East & Africa (n=33) are not shown because of small samples.}

The full Corporate R&D of the Future report, which also compares views by region, organization size and role and sets out recommendations for R&D organizations, is available at www.elsevier.com/insights/corporate-r-and-d-of-the-future.

About the survey

Corporate R&D of the Future is based on an online survey, conducted by email invitation between August and October 2026, of 1,038 R&D leaders, managers and researchers at R&D-led corporations in 55 countries across North America, South America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and Asia Pacific. Responses are weighted. Figures may not sum up because of rounding. Full methodology is in the report appendix. Figures on flawed decisions exclude respondents who answered don’t know or preferred not to say.

關於 Elsevier

身為科學資訊與分析的全球領導者，Elsevier 協助研究人員與醫療照護專業人員推動科學發展，改善醫療成果，造福社會。我們以可信賴、以實證為基礎的內容和先進的 AI 數位技術為基礎，透過創新的解決方案促進洞察力和關鍵決策。

140 多年來，我們一直為研究和醫療保健界的工作提供支援。我們全球 9,500 名員工，包括 2,300 名技術人員，致力於支援研究人員、圖書館館長、學術領袖、資金提供者、政府、研發密集型公司、醫生、護士、未來醫療保健專業人員和教育工作者的重要工作。我們的 2,900 種科學期刊和經典參考工具書包括其領域中最重要的書籍，包括 Cell Press、The Lancet 和 Gray's Anatomy。 我們與愛思唯爾基金會 (Elsevier Foundationopens in new tab/window) 合作，與我們服務的社群攜手合作，在發展中國家和世界各地的科學、研究和醫療保健領域推動包容性和多樣性。 Elsevier 是 RELXopens in new tab/window 的一部分，RELXopens in new tab/window 是一家為專業和商業客戶提供以資訊為基礎的分析和決策工具的全球供應商。有關我們的工作、數位解決方案和內容的更多資訊，請造訪 www.elsevier.com 。