I have a philosophical question for you to ponder:
If a research paper is published, and its hypothesis is proven, but no one acts on it, did the paper even exist?
I ask this because I’ve seen too many academic research reports that are written by and for scientists, that prove a theory but are lost to history because they are written in obtuse jargon and published to obscure journals.
Sign Up Now for more commentary on digital development
Investing in a PDF Graveyard
We are spending millions of dollars to produce digital tombstones that nobody visits, while the constituents we serve couldn’t care less about yet another peer-reviewed journal article or its citation count.
Researchers and their organizations only seem to count the number of reports they publish, not the impact of their research.This isn’t just an academic gripe. It is a systemic failure in the international development sector.
When did a poor farmer, a pregnant mother, or caring parents ever ask you if your intervention was published in a peer-reviewed journal?
The Rising Tide of Unread Words
Let’s look at the United Nations numbers, because the scale of this waste is staggering.
In 2024, the United Nations Secretariat published more than 1,100 reports. This represents an increase of nearly 20 percent since 1990. We are producing more content than ever before, yet we aren’t necessarily communicating more effectively.
The problem isn’t just the quantity of reports; it’s their bloat. Reports are growing longer, with average UN report word counts rising by 40 percent since 2005. If you look at reports going to the General Assembly, Security Council, and ECOSOC, they now average around 11,300 words each. That is about one-third longer than the UN Secretariat’s own recommended limit.
We are essentially asking busy policymakers and practitioners to find the signal in an ever-growing mountain of noise. When everything is comprehensive, nothing is a priority. This “more is better” approach to reporting is actively undermining our ability to drive change.
$360 Million for Unread Reports
Some might argue that these reports are core to the UN’s mission of norm-setting and dialogue. I don’t disagree that information exchange is critical. However, the efficiency of this exchange is abysmal.
In 2024, the UN Secretariat spent over $360 million on direct costs associated with meetings and reports. This includes things like editing and translation, and it represents more than 10 percent of the Regular Budget. Keep in mind, this doesn’t even include the indirect costs, like thousands of hours spent on research and drafting, which would raise that figure considerably.
Is this a good use of $360 million? The data suggests otherwise.
Despite the vast output, most reports are not widely read. Last year, nearly 65 percent of these reports were downloaded fewer than 2,000 times. Compare that to the top 5 percent of reports, which were accessed at least 5,500 times.
The truth is more complex than just download stats, as some argue that reports are emailed or shared through other channels. But even then, the World Bank found that 87 percent of policy reports were never cited.
If a report isn’t downloaded and it isn’t cited, it’s hard to claim it’s having any impact at all. We are essentially paying for the privilege of talking to ourselves.
Why Publish to PDF Graveyards?
Why does this continue? It comes down to misaligned incentives.
Too many organizations consider publication to be the end goal. They view the work of turning research into impact as someone else’s job. In many academic and policy circles, the “publish or perish” mentality reigns supreme.
ICT4D researchers are failing the poor by not engaging closely enough with the users of their research. The reality is that change takes time and effort to spread key messages and build champions at all levels of an ecosystem.
A PDF alone, no matter how brilliant, cannot do that.
From “Publish or Perish” to “Impact or Die”
The defunding of international development is an appropriate moment to review this situation. We need to stop equating publication with progress. For our constituents, published reports that are not acted on are a waste of everyone’s time and money.
We need to move from “publish or perish” to “impact or die”.
Here are three things we must do differently:
- Prioritize Impact Over Volume: We need to streamline requests for reports and prioritize quality and actionability over word count. We should experiment with different formats, rather than default to the 10,000-word monolith.
- Align Funding with Outcomes: Donors need to move away from demanding reporting bloat. We need more flexible, pooled funding that allows organizations to focus on achieving measurable outcomes for people and the planet.
- Invest in the “Last Mile” of Research: If we spend $1 million on a study, we should be spending an equal amount on the advocacy, communication, and implementation support needed to make that study matter. Impact should be considered equal to scientific discovery, not a secondary “nice-to-have”.
Let’s be honest: no one is going to miss the 1,101st report from the UN. But they will notice if we start spending $360 million on things that change lives.
It’s time to stop building graveyards and start building impact.
