Introduction

The concept of research gaps has long preoccupied the scientific community, since the advancement of knowledge largely depends on researchers’ ability to identify weaknesses or contradictions in the existing literature. Systematically recognizing gaps in a field is not an easy task, as what is considered a gap by one researcher may not be treated as such by another. At the same time, the absence of established methodological frameworks in the past made the identification of these gaps more a matter of perception than of objective evaluation. Today, however, the importance of this concept has emerged as a cornerstone of research, especially for young scientists and doctoral candidates who seek to make original contributions in their fields. One of the most significant types of gaps is the evidence gap, which is directly linked to the reliability and validity of conclusions.

What is an Evidence Gap

An evidence gap appears when new research findings contradict conclusions that were previously considered widely accepted. Essentially, it highlights situations in which the results of individual studies may appear adequate and correct, but when examined in a broader or comparative framework, contradictions arise that cannot be ignored. An evidence gap, therefore, is not simply a theoretical weakness but a sign that knowledge on the subject is fragmented or unclear. A characteristic example can be found in studies dealing with the role of recommendations in decision-making processes. While many studies showed that recommendations can improve the quality of decisions and reduce the effort required, other research claimed the exact opposite, clearly demonstrating the existence of an evidence gap.

The Process of Identification

Identifying an evidence gap always begins with a systematic analysis of the literature. The researcher is called upon to gather all relevant data, examine the methodologies that have been employed, and locate the discrepancies in the findings. This is a process that requires a critical eye and the ability to synthesize, since the goal is not only to record individual results but to understand the overall picture that emerges from comparing multiple studies. In essence, the recording of such contradictions opens the way for the formulation of new research questions and contributes to the mapping of future directions. It is important to note that this process is not static but dynamic, as over time and with the emergence of new studies, gaps may either widen or be closed.

Verification of the Gap

Verifying an evidence gap is a crucial stage, since the mistaken impression that a gap exists may lead to unnecessary research efforts. For this reason, researchers must ensure that the contradiction or lack they have identified has not already been addressed by other studies. The verification process may involve conducting extended searches in scientific databases, reviewing modern handbooks that summarize the existing theoretical background, and analyzing the sources used by other researchers to establish their work. In this way, the likelihood of presenting an already answered issue as a new one is reduced, while at the same time the validity of the research contribution is strengthened.

Strategy for Writing and Presentation

Presenting evidence gaps in research writing requires clarity, methodical structure, and scientific consistency. The researcher must refer to previous studies, highlight their contributions, but also reveal their weaknesses in relation to the research subject. Through this process, the gap is not presented as a vague idea but as a substantiated observation that emerges from the systematic comparison of data. In this way, the reader can understand the importance of the gap, appreciate the contribution of the new research, and perceive its relevance within the broader scientific framework.

Conclusions

The concept of the evidence gap should not be regarded as a weakness of science but rather as a driving force that propels research into new directions. Systematic literature reviews, careful identification of contradictions, and reliable verification of gaps form the basis for research projects that are rooted in the real needs of the scientific community. This process ensures that research questions are meaningful, that methodology is oriented toward solving real problems, and that results genuinely contribute to the advancement of knowledge. Overall, the notion of the evidence gap provides a systematic approach that makes scientific research more accurate, more reliable, and more creative, serving as a bridge between the uncertainty of today and the knowledge of tomorrow.