A scoping review of horizon scanning approaches used to identify emerging research methods

Horizon scanning, Research methods, Innovation, Emerging methods ALL Metrics - Views Downloads How to cite this article O'Connor N, Eastaugh C, Lister J et al. A scoping review of horizon scanning approaches used to identify emerging research methods [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:86 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13981.1) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente Select a format first ▬ ✚ Systematic Review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Nicole O'Connor https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6654-7178 1, Claire Eastaugh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1371-6601 1, Jennie Lister2, [...] Catriona McDaid https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3751-7260 2, Catherine Hewitt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0415-3536 2, Dawn Craig https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5808-0096 1, Gill Norman1Nicole O'Connor https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6654-7178 1, Claire Eastaugh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1371-6601 1, [...] Jennie Lister2, Catriona McDaid https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3751-7260 2, Catherine Hewitt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0415-3536 2, Dawn Craig https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5808-0096 1, Gill Norman1 PUBLISHED 24 Sep 2025 Author details Author details 1 NIHR Innovation Observatory, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, NE1 7RU, UK 2 York Trial Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England, YO10 5DD, UK 2 York Trial Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England, YO10 5DD, UK Nicole O'Connor Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Claire Eastaugh Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Jennie Lister Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Catriona McDaid Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Catherine Hewitt Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Dawn Craig Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Gill Norman Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW REVIEWER STATUS Horizon scanning is an exploratory research method used to identify, select, and analyse information to detect signals and trends related to new and emerging innovations using pre-defined and explicit methods. It has the potential to play a role in anticipating methodological research trends and innovations, helping to deliver therapies to patients faster. However, the extent to which horizon scanning has been applied to identify emerging research methods is unclear. This scoping review explores if and how horizon scanning has been used to identify research methods in any field, setting or location. Eligibility was based on the Population, Concept and Context framework: Any information source that used horizon scanning to identify research methods was eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and then full texts. Following a pilot phase, one reviewer extracted data, and three others performed data accuracy checks. Five studies published between 2017 and 2024 met the eligibility criteria, and a further 13 partially met the eligibility criteria and are summarised separately. The five fully included studies belonged to the environmental, ecological, and earth science disciplines. Using the horizon scanning system defined by the EuroScan network, the most reported was signal detection. A literature review was the most common method used to identify signals, other approaches included a combination of literature reviews with interviews and expert opinion. A range of methods were identified as priority areas for the future, including digitisation, computational techniques, genomics and statistical methods. There was heterogeneity in horizon scanning approaches and reporting. This scoping review found limited systematic research using horizon scanning to identify research methods, which hinders preparation for evaluation and implementation. This highlights the need for further research to establish optimal horizon scanning approaches to identify research methods in health and social care. Horizon scanning is a way of looking ahead to identify new ideas and trends. It helps researchers find out what might be coming next. In our case, we are interested in identifying new research methods, i.e., new ways of doing things. However, we don’t know if other groups in health and social care and across different fields, like environmental sciences and military defence, have used horizon scanning to find new research methods. Has horizon scanning been used to spot new research methods, and if so, how was it done? We used a defined research method called a scoping review to answer our research question. Scoping reviews search for and examine a wide range of information to get a better understanding of a specific topic. We found five studies published between 2017 and 2024 that used horizon scanning to find research methods. We also found 13 others that partly met our research question. The five main studies explored research methods in environmental and earth sciences. The way horizon scanning was done varied a lot between studies. Not many studies have used horizon scanning to look for new research methods. Further work to optimise approaches could help prepare for future methods and facilitate timely implementation in health and social care. Horizon scanning, Research methods, Innovation, Emerging methods Corresponding Author(s) Nicole O'Connor ([email protected]) Grant information: This research resulted from work that is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Support Service (RSS). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 O'Connor N et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: O'Connor N, Eastaugh C, Lister J et al. A scoping review of horizon scanning approaches used to identify emerging research methods [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:86 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13981.1) First published: 24 Sep 2025, 5:86 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13981.1) Latest published: 24 Sep 2025, 5:86 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13981.1) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Horizon scanning is an exploratory research method that identifies, selects, and analyses information to detect signals or trends related to emerging innovations (e.g., research methods) using predefined methods. This early intelligence provides foreknowledge about potential changes, facilitating proactive and well-informed decision-making and thereby increasing the likelihood of effective management of innovations that have the potential to disrupt current practices. Horizon scanning is a long-standing and important method predominantly used within and across public policy organisations to identify future areas of priority so resources can be appropriately allocated and policy decisions can be made with a longer-term focus1. For example, in health and social care, health technology assessment agencies worldwide use horizon scanning to identify medicines and medical devices that are in the clinical development pipeline and are likely to enter the healthcare market at some point in the future. This gives decision-makers time to plan for the timely evaluation of promising technologies most needed to address population health needs, ultimately accelerating their availability to patients2. Additionally, horizon scanning is used to answer a wide range of research questions, from identifying unmet needs to mapping research and funding landscapes3. Research methods have previously been defined as the systematic tools to identify, collect, analyse and interpret information4. Innovation and timely implementation of research methods that increase efficiency and effectiveness are essential to address the evolving health needs of the population, especially in the context of rapidly changing environments and complex health systems. Recent examples of methodological advancements to answer health-related priority research questions include the developments in and use of rapid evidence synthesis (RES), platform trials during the COVID-19 global pandemic, and the use of basket trials in rare diseases5–8. To ensure rigour, the broader methodological advancements mentioned above require developments in the component methods which underpin its use. To use RES as an example, the development of component methods includes the truncation or adaption of systematic review searching, screening, data extraction etc. These methodological advancements were necessary to accelerate patient access to safe and effective technologies by improving efficiency whilst maintaining scientific rigour. Increasing innovation in clinical research is a priority policy area in many countries; for example, in the UK, several national policy documents have set out strategic plans to make the United Kingdom a global leader. Notably, the UK Innovation Strategy, The Life Sciences Vision, and the NHS Long Term Plan highlight a commitment to accelerating innovative clinical research to treat or prevent ill-health and premature death9–11. Horizon scanning has the potential to play a vital role in generating early awareness of methodological research trends and innovations. It is well known that evidence-based interventions do not necessarily translate immediately into widescale implementation or adoption, and although the published literature on the implementation and adoption of research methods is less clear, we can expect similar challenges to apply12. Barriers to the dispersion and uptake may include limited awareness, funding, technical expertise, and perceived uncertainty about the method's validity in the absence of robust evaluation or unexplored ethical concerns. Having early awareness of upcoming research methods and disseminating this information to key stakeholders provides an opportunity to highlight and mitigate these barriers early on, helping to identify any unaddressed gaps, shape training, build capacity, and, where appropriate, encourage timely implementation. However, despite horizon scanning being used successfully in related areas, the extent to which horizon scanning has been applied to identify research methods in health and social care research and other research fields are unclear. To address this gap, this scoping review explores if and how horizon scanning approaches are used to identify research methods across any field, setting or location. The research question is exploratory and aimed to identify the breadth of existing research on a particular concept. As confirmed by the Right Review tool, a scoping review is the appropriate evidence synthesis for this work13. The scoping review was planned and conducted according to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews14. The protocol was registered on the Open Sciences Framework on August 01, 2024 (https://osf)15. The protocol and all appendices referred to throughout this article can be found on OSFHOME repository using the following DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/4XQV6. Patients and the public were not involved during this project, but the findings from this piece of work will be used to inform future involvement and engagement days to shape the next stages. Appendix 1 provides full details of the eligibility criteria. In summary, the research question was formulated using the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework, and any information source that used horizon scanning to identify research methods or methodologies was eligible for inclusion. There were no restrictions on the type of research field, place or setting where the research was conducted, or the research sponsor14. Peer-reviewed published articles, conference abstracts, and reports from grey literature were eligible for inclusion. Editorials, letters, comments, notes, erratum, economic evaluations, cost and resource use studies and trial protocols were excluded. A pragmatic search strategy was developed by an experienced information specialist (CE) using concepts for ‘horizon scan’ and ‘method’. The search strategy was developed in Embase (OVID) and peer-reviewed by a second information specialist (SGGM) prior to being translated to Scopus and ProQuest (Social Science Premium Collection). Search results were combined and deduplicated using EndNote (version 20.2 Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA). No limitations or restrictions were placed on the searches. The searches were conducted on the 6 June 2024, and the full search strategies can be found in Appendix 2. Two reviewers (NO’C or CE or JL) independently reviewed the title, abstracts, and then full-text articles for each record. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and consultation with a third reviewer, with a fourth reviewer (GN) consulted if needed. Reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage are in Appendix 3, and the search results and inclusion process are presented in Figure 1. Following a pilot phase with two articles (NO’C, CE), one reviewer (NO’C) extracted data from the remaining articles. This data was comprehensively checked by one review team member (CE), with further accuracy checks by two other reviewers (GN and JL). Disagreements were resolved through discussion. In the interest of time, authors were not contacted for additional information. The data extraction file can be viewed here https://osf.io/ (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/4XQV6). Appendix 4 (V1.1, 30.08.2024) provides a complete list of extracted data items. In brief, data was extracted across four categories: study characteristics, horizon scanning, methods and reporting. The EuroScan International Network’s early awareness and alert system (also called horizon scanning systems) is an internationally agreed framework used in this study to categorise horizon scanning approaches16. There is variation in how the framework is described and applied, for the purposes of this study, we have considered all stages of the framework as the horizon scanning system. A brief description of this system, including its stages and processes for detecting healthcare technologies, is described in Table 1. In line with methodological standards for scoping reviews, critical appraisal of the individual studies was not undertaken14.

are presented alongside a narrative summary. Reporting for this manuscript adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist available in Appendix 5 on the Open Science Framework repository (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4XQV6)15,19. Deviations from the protocol are documented in Appendix 6. After duplicates were removed, 727 citations were identified. At the title and abstract stage, 680 records were excluded, with 47 full-text articles retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of these, 29 were excluded for the following reasons: 16 did not present primary horizon scanning research; 11 used horizon scanning but not to identify research methods; and two were excluded because they were not written in English. A full list of excluded articles is available in Appendix 3 and Figure 1 shows the flow of records through the identification and eligibility assessment stages. Five studies fully met the eligibility criteria to be included in this review20–24. Thirteen additional studies partially met the eligibility criteria and have been categorised as included studies of secondary relevance because they aimed to identify emerging issues, opportunities, knowledge gaps, or challenges that are likely to be important in the future; while these studies did not use horizon scanning to identify research methods, all reported research methods as a finding25–37. This was considered an important secondary finding relevant to the aims of this scoping review, and these studies are discussed further under ‘secondary findings’. Although consensus was reached on the full inclusion of the five studies and inclusion of the thirteen studies of secondary relevance, this was only achieved after extensive discussion and consultation between the review team. The difficulty in applying inclusion and exclusion criteria was primarily attributable to the limited reporting in identified studies and the scientific fields represented by the studies. The five included studies were all peer reviewed studies that were published between 2017–2024, they all belonged to the environmental, ecological, and earth science disciplines. Two authors specified the remit of their research; one was relevant globally, and the other had a European focus. All authors reported funding information, details of this and other characteristics of the included studies are described below in Table 2. | First author (publication year)citation(s) | Title | Article Type | Place of research focus (e.g., city, country, continent) | Aims | Funder(s) | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | Abdelhady (2024)20 | New and emerging technologies in paleontology and paleobiology: A horizon scanning review | Peer-reviewed article (primary research) | Not reported | To critically assess the state-of-the- art physical, chemical, and biological technologies used in paleontological research. In addition, the authors conducted horizon scanning to identify the current status and a way forward to provide a road map for their future use. | King Saud University | | Novak (2020)23,28 | Transforming Ocean Conservation: Applying the Genetic Rescue Toolkit | Peer-reviewed article (primary research) and website | Not reported | To highlight opportunities to bring genomic insight and biotechnology innovations to complement current and future marine conservation. | National Philanthropic Trust | | Musche (2019)22 | Research questions to facilitate the future development of European long-term ecosystem research infrastructures: A horizon scanning exercise | Peer-reviewed article (primary research) | Europe | To capture, classify and prioritise research questions that need to be considered for the future development of long-term ecosystem and socio-ecological research infrastructures, with a focus on research questions that are currently emerging, or address knowledge gaps. | European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program European Regional Development Fund Czech Science Foundation and The Czech Academy of Sciences | | Tomsett (2019)24 | Remote sensing of river corridors: A review of current trends and future directions | Peer-reviewed article (literature review) | Not reported | To highlight the current and future methods that are employed to aid our understanding of the river corridor | Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Natural Environment Research Council | | Hofmann (2017)21 | Ecological Epigenetics in Marine Metazoans | Peer-reviewed article (literature review) | Global | To review key studies in ecological epigenetics and epigenomics, specifically in marine metazoans focusing on studies examining changes in DNA methylation. | U.S. National Science Foundation UC Climate Champion award from the University of California | Horizon scanning was broadly conceptualised in the included studies as a methodology to gather emerging insights to address future challenges, see Table 3 for individual descriptions. | Name of first author | Description of horizon scanning | |---|---| | Abdelhady | “A systematic horizon scanning analysis and literature review was done to identify current and potential future research directions in paleontology and paleobiology.” (Abdelhady, 2024, p.8)20 | | Hoffman | “In this horizon scan article, I review the emerging area of ecological epigenetics in marine animals with studies of DNA methylation as the primary focus.” (Hoffman, 2017, p.1)21 | | Musche | “Horizon scanning methods represent a common tool to detect emerging issues by consulting a large group of Individuals.” (Musche, 2019, p.3)22 | | Novak | “The Horizon Scan identifies promising genomics applications for addressing marine conservation challenges, current technologies and leaders in the field, and gaps in our knowledge. (Novak, 2020, p.28)38 | | Tomsett | “We also seek to highlight studies that combine multiple remote sensing techniques, such that they are developing new insight into river corridors before “horizon scanning” to try and suggest a future agenda for the remote sensing of river corridors. Finally, we outline the key challenges that will need to be addressed in order for the techniques and methods identified to progress to a point where they can be broadly applied” (Tomsett, 2019, p.2)24 | Table 4 presents the horizon scanning methods that were used to identify needed or emerging research methods in each of the included studies. | Author (date)citation | Detection | Filtration | Prioritisation | Assessment | Dissemination | Updating | Evaluation of process | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Abdelhady (2024)20 | Time Horizon: NR Eligibility Criteria: NR Method(s): Systematic literature review Restrictions: Field: Earth Science; Date: 2000–2022. Database: Scopus. Journals: Paleontology. | NR | Bibliometric analysis: Topics were ranked based on keyword frequency over time to highlight historical trends using AntConc v4.2. Four groups of emerging techniques were assessed but the methods to determine are unclear | Narrative /opinion piece | Not formally reported/ publication | NR | NR | | Novak (2020)23,38 | Time Horizon: NR Eligibility Criteria: NR Method(s): Interviews with multi-disciplinary experts (n100 from 60 institutions) and a Literature review (>250 articles). | NR | NR | Narrative/ opinion piece Qualitative framework to display technological maturity and socio-political/ economic factors which influence readiness, deployment and acceptability of applications. | Not formally reported/ website/ publication | NR | NR | | Musche (2019)22 | Time Horizon: NR Eligibility Criteria: NR Method(s): Multi- disciplinary expert consultation (n=6) was conducted with a random sample (n=28) to generate initial questions. Following this, online surveys were distributed using snowball sampling to the core groups personal networks in order to collect emerging research questions. | Methods and criteria are unclearly reported; however, questions were consolidated, de-duplicated, and eliminated by the leading team (n4). | Questions grouped into four themes and ranked by the core team for relevance to future research infrastructure. The top four questions from each theme (16 total) were selected for discussion and refined through re-formulation, merging, reinstating, or scope adjustment. Final mean scores were calculated and alternative questions presented, the five highest-ranking questions per theme formed a list of 20 priority research questions. | Narrative and visual/opinion piece A conceptual visualisation to demonstrate the increasing complexity of research infrastructure, themes and ecosystems alongside policy relevance. | Not formally reported/ publication | NR | NR | | Tomsett (2019)24 | Time Horizon: Near future Eligibility Criteria: NR Method(s): Literature review | NR | NR | Narrative/ opinion piece | Not formally reported/ publication | NR | NR | | Hofmann (2017)21 | Time Horizon: NR Eligibility Criteria: NR Method(s): Literature review | NR | NR | Narrative/ opinion piece | Not formally reported/ publication | NR | NR | When mapped against the horizon scanning system, the most well-reported stage of horizon scanning was signal detection, which was reported in all studies. A literature review was the most common method (n=4) used to identify signals20,21,23,24. Two studies used a combination of approaches, such as expert consultation alongside online surveys, or interviews with experts together with a literature review22,23. The criteria and methods used for assessing eligibility of information (filtration) were not clearly reported in any study. Two authors reported prioritisation criteria; the methods used to prioritise the identified signals included expert engagement for consensus-deriving ranking and quantitative ranking techniques using bibliometric analysis. Assessment methods included author opinion, which was reported narratively, and qualitative frameworks to indicate wider determinants of readiness such as socio-political and economic factors. No studies conducted formal assessments of the prioritised innovations to ascertain the potential for impact, for example to examine the existing and ongoing evidence base and related areas of uncertainty, costs, ethical, political, legal or cultural impact (such formal methods may include rapid evidence synthesis, driver analysis, scenario planning or modified-Delphi study18). Although a dissemination plan was not explicitly reported by any of the studies, the publications themselves are a form of dissemination and are classified under this category. Additionally, none of the studies or related materials document any intention to update or evaluate the horizon scanning process or findings. There was no reported public involvement in the planning or conduct of these studies. Overall, there was heterogeneity in the reporting of horizon scanning methodology used and its presentation across the studies. All five studies reported using horizon scanning to identify research methods within the environmental, ecological, and earth science disciplines. Table 5 provides a summary of the methods identified across different fields. | Author | Research field | Research focus | Method(s) identified | |---|---|---|---| | Abdelhady20 | Earth sciences/ Geology | Paleontology and paleobiology | 1. Digitisation (e.g., Laser and computed tomography scan) 2. Molecular analysis (e.g., Paleogenomics/DNA and biomarkers for diagnostics) 3. Computational/statistical techniques (e.g., Quantitative biostratigraphy, modelling and machine learning) 4. Sclerochronology | | Hofmann21 | Ecology | Ecological epigenetics and epigenomics in marine metazoans | 1. Methylation-sensitive amplification polymorphism method 2. Kit based quantitative tools (e.g.,ELIZA) 3. Genomic sequencing (e.g., bisulfite sequencing to profile genomic-scale methylation patterns) | | Musche22 | Biology/Ecology | Ecosystems | 1. Detection of critical thresholds in ecosystem response (e.g., analysis of long-term data to improve false positives, using simultaneous data sets from multiple sources) 2. Comparability of heterogeneous datasets through development of statistical tools, harmonization of methodologies across research sites, and, joint analysis of big data coming from citizen science. 3. Reduce uncertainties in global and regional climate change projections provided by earth system models through harmonisation of field methods and measurement standards to enable use of data and modelling opportunities from different networks (e.g., Improve parameterization of processes for climate simulations). 4. Emerging technological developments with greatest potential and consideration of scaling issues when transferring local data to decision making. Open software solutions to facilitate sampling, management and analysis of data with a focus on standard configurations. 5. Molecular high-throughput technologies to analyse link between genetic and functional diversity with ecosystem processes and infrastructure development which relies on existing initiatives. | | Novak23 | Conservation biology | Ocean conservation | 1. Genetic insight guided captive breeding 2. Genetic diversity augmentation via genomic guided translocation/ reintroduction 3. Genetic diversity augmentation via genomic-guided advanced reproductive technologies 4. Facilitated adaption via genetic guided translocation/reintroduction. 5. eDNA for monitoring invasive species 6. Synthetic alternatives 7. Cellular alternatives 8. ex situ bioremediation 9. Engineered/edited whole organism alternatives 10. In situ bioremediation 11. Genomic biocontrols for invasive/irruptive species 12. De-extinction via precise hybridization (gene editing) | | Tomsett24 | Geography and environmental science | Remote sensing methods | 1. Unmanned aerial vehicles. 2. Autonomous underwater vehicles 3. Unmanned surface vehicle 4. Real time monitoring using internet of things 5. Satellite remote sensing | Identified methods or techniques included digitisation, computational techniques, genomics, next-generation sequencing, statistical methods to facilitate dataset comparability and the harmonisation of measurements and methods across sites. Only two studies cited references to support their horizon scanning method, and none referenced the use of any reporting guidance. Abdelhady cited guidance on conducting bibliographic analysis20,39, while Musche referenced previously published work to justify the use of a modified Delphi method and the omission of a workshop22,40–42. In addition to narrative reporting, a range of visualisations (n=19) were presented across the five included studies (see Box 1 for a description of visualisation types and examples). Two studies used visualisations in their assessment stages as conceptual tools to illustrate awareness of technologies or methods in relation to broader considerations, such as sociopolitical and economic acceptability22,23. | • Pie charts (n=6) (e.g., temporal change in use of techniques relevant to paleontology)20,23. • Doughnut chart (n=1)20. • Line graph (n=4) (e.g., Publication trends (method field) over time)20,24. • Geospatial analysis map with insets (n=1)24. • Global thematic map with insets (place) and time series chart (n=1)23. • Conceptual framework to categorise research infrastructure, themes, ecosystem and disciplinarity requirements against complexity and policy relevance (n=1)22. • Qualitative framework (n1) (e.g., technological readiness according to acceptability)23. • Sunburst chart (n1)20. • Dual axis bar chart (n1) (e.g., frequencies of publications and occurrences in the Paleobiology Database (PBDB) according to taxonomic groups)20. • Horizontal bar chart (n1) (e.g., frequencies of topics in research filed over five years)20. • Composite comparative chart - spatial resolution chart alongside a bar chart (n1)24. | The thirteen studies that partially met the eligibility criteria are summarised below and in Table 6. They used horizon scanning approaches to explore broad aspects of future importance, such as issues or opportunities, and then discussed research methods as a finding. A full list of references is available in Appendix 725–37. | Author (date of publication)citation Article type | Title | Horizon scanning approach | Methods identified | |---|---|---|---| | Health and social care related studies (n=6) | ||| | Otsuka (2023)29 Full text | Horizon Scanning in Tissue Engineering Using Citation Network Analysis | Citation network analysis | 3D bio-printing for use in tissue engineering | | Bockhold (2022)25 Abstract | Future technologies and projected innovations for medical radiation applications and radiation protection: the euramed rocc-n-roll horizon scanning survey | Cross-sectional online survey following a Delphi study | Artificial intelligence solutions Dose reduction technology and techniques Cardiovascular and neurological applications of diagnostic and interventional medical imaging | | Provencher (2020)33 Full text | A Horizon Scan of research priorities to inform policies aimed at reducing the harm of plastic pollution to biota | Survey | Methods to implement standardized sampling and reporting of ingested plastics. Methods for non-lethal sampling to assess plastic ingestion | | Giuffre (2020)28 Abstract | FRESHER and RARE 2030: scanning the horizon emerging trends in health and healthcare | Four step foresight methodology: horizon scanning, trends identification and ranking, scenarios building, backcasting and policy elaboration using participatory approaches | Big data Artificial Intelligence applications | | Fennessy (2019)26 Abstract | Genomics: From Horizon Scanning To National Health Policy | Adapted horizon scanning followed by extensive stakeholder consultation | Infrastructure Data | | Parker (2014)30 Full text | Identifying the Science and Technology Dimensions of Emerging Public Policy Issues through Horizon Scanning | modified-Delphi and a workshop | Developing capabilities in interdisciplinary whole systems energy science, including new methods, approaches and analytical tools Integrated land-use planning: Developing and testing methods to support resource allocation conflict resolution Meeting long-term skills requirements: Improving methods for anticipating demand Public sector capacity to be an intelligent customer of scientific advice: Developing methods for assessing the value and validity of, and for valorising, non-scientific evidence in policy making Antimicrobial resistance and infectious diseases: Identifying methods to incentivise the development of novel therapies | | Non health and social care related studies (n=7) | ||| | Tew (2024)36 Full text | A horizon scan of issues affecting UK forest management within 50 years | Modified Delphi | Efficient and effective methods of storing roundwood | | Robison (2023)35 Full text | Shifts in the smart research agenda? 100 priority questions to accelerate sustainable energy futures | Delphi method | Participatory methods to engage diverse and marginalized groups (e.g., co-design, speculative design) | | Pustkowiak (2021)34 Full text | Small things are important: the value of singular point elements for birds in agricultural landscapes | Literature review followed by assessment of results by survey | Singular point elements as a tool to increase bird diversity | | Trofimova (2020)37 Full text | Fundamental questions and applications of sclerochronology: Community-defined research priorities | Workshop (initial list and ranking) followed by Survey | Methods to assess the leads, lags, and synchronicities in sclerochronological records across large spatial regions. | | Bharucha (2020)32 Full text | The Top 100 questions for the sustainable intensification of agriculture in India’s rainfed drylands | Modified Delphi | Monitoring of soil moisture and crop water demand combined with more efficient irrigation methods and increased wastewater reuse | | Fitak (2019)27 Full text | The Expectations and Challenges of Wildlife Disease Research in the Era of Genomics: Forecasting with a Horizon Scan-like Exercise | Workshop | Methodological and analytical advancements in sequencing, sample processing, best practices and accessibility | | Patino (2017)31 Full text | A roadmap for island biology: 50 fundamental questions after 50 years of The Theory of Island Biogeography | Survey (Following expert opinion to generate initial list of priority questions) | Methods for responding to the anthropogenic extinction crisis on island Methods to identify islands most susceptible to biodiversity loss in the next decade Efficient and cost-effective methods (i.e. policy; education; research; management) for safeguarding biodiversity in island biology. | Six of the studies were interested in emerging issues related to health and social care, specifically in relation to genomics, rare diseases, ionizing radiation, and health policy, one of these studies explored plastic pollution and had a transdisciplinary remit that included health25,26,28–30,33. The remaining seven studies contained research relevant to environmental and ecological sciences. To summarise the horizon scanning approaches used, seven of the thirteen studies used a combination of approaches. The reported approaches, either in isolation or combination, include: one case study on the utility of citation network analysis, five used the Delphi method or a modified version, five used surveys, and three reported workshops. One article described a four-step foresight approach with horizon scanning as the identification stage, although reporting was limited due to it being an abstract. The horizon scanning approach in a second abstract is also unclear, but it appeared to involve expert consultation. To highlight some of the methods identified as an area of focus in health and social care, Provencher et al., used survey-based horizon scanning to prioritise research questions for plastic pollution policies, ultimately highlighting the need for standardised sampling and reporting methods33. Similarly, Giuffre et al., used foresight methodology to identify emerging trends in rare diseases to guide future policy development, they identified trends in 1) citizen empowerment 2) leveraging big data and artificial intelligence to improve data standardisation and interoperability, automated data extraction techniques, and the creation of disease registries using existing clinical data28,43. Other research methods and tools identified as a need include artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for medical radiation applications and the requirement for further work to effectively implement genomics into health and social care via national policies25,26. Examples of emerging areas where focus should be given includes improving methods for predicting skills demand, improving scientific literacy, and developing tools to assess national metrics such as population health30. Additionally, emerging areas include diversifying policy evaluation methodologies and incorporating public opinion into early policy development by using crowdsourcing and social media. Methods for assessing the value of non-scientific evidence in policymaking were also identified as well as a need for methods to determine when public engagement is appropriate, how best to monitor social intelligence and identify emerging diseases30. In this scoping review, five studies were identified that reported using horizon scanning to identify research methods. While the search did not have date limits applied and was broad enough to identify literature from multiple disciplines, all the studies included belonged to the environmental, ecological, and earth science disciplines and were published relatively recently between 2017 and 2024. Horizon scan methodology used research approaches, such as literature reviews, interviews, and surveys, highlighting 29 research methods that are likely important for the future advancement of research in those areas. It has been previously reported that there is variation in the aims of horizon scanning, the methods used to conduct it, and the terminology used to describe it. This variation likely reflects the wide-ranging disciplines that rely on its use to generate early intelligence to answer different policy and research questions, together with a lack of agreed standardised methodology for the planning, conducting and reporting of horizon scanning. As described in the methods section, the stages outlined in the historical 2014 EuroScan horizon scanning system were used as a framework to map the horizon-scanning findings. As far as can be determined, it is the only internationally agreed framework that describes the stages of horizon scanning, and using it helped to categorise and present the results. However, there are major drawbacks to taking this approach, it was originally developed for a specific use in the healthcare and biomedical fields as an early awareness system to support the health technology assessment of medicines, and this may have limited its applicability to other disciplines and where the use of horizon scanning is for different aims and purposes. Additionally, none of the authors appear to have followed pre-defined, systematic methods nor reported them explicitly. Considering this, best judgment and consensus were used to categorise the identified horizon scanning methods. Within the findings, variability in the definitions and aims of horizon scanning was noted. While the EuroScan early awareness and alert system is referred to as a horizon scanning system by both EuroScan and Hines et al., they also highlight one stage of the process (i.e., detection), as horizon scanning and consider separate subsequent stages (i.e., filtration, prioritisation, assessment, dissemination, updating and evaluation) under foresight methodology. There is also variation in the definitions used in the EUnetHTA 2020 recommendations, where the authors describe the later stages (topic identification, selection and prioritisation) as horizon scanning only if it is proactive. This variation suggests a lack of consensus on whether horizon scanning should be regarded as a systematic method solely to identify emerging signals, with subsequent stages (filtration, prioritisation, assessment, dissemination, updating and evaluation) considered separately as foresight methodology. In practice, horizon scanning centres take a tailored approach to meet the needs of individual research question and often consider stages beyond detection as part of the horizon scanning process44. There are ongoing efforts to make the planning, conduct and reporting of horizon scanning more methodologically robust45; variation or ambiguity in how expansive the definition of horizon scanning should be, means that careful delineation is required to determine the scope and reach of all considerations of horizon scanning activity. As previously mentioned, many studies were poorly reported. This, combined with the varying norms across different research areas, broadly defined aims (e.g., horizon scanning to identify issues, threats, or opportunities), and terminology for findings that could be considered methods (e.g., AI and big data), made several scoping review stages challenging. One particularly difficult aspect was identifying research methods due to the lack of a cross-disciplinary classification framework. The Methods Map developed by Sage may be a useful framework for organising various research methods, approaches, and techniques for researchers looking to undertake similar work, but it is limited in its applicability to transdisciplinary areas and also in some areas of evidence-based medicine, like systematic review and health economics4. Using horizon scanning as a scientific method to explore emerging trends and research likely to impact the future can increase early awareness, evaluation, and the subsequent adoption of the most promising and innovative methods. Similarly, using horizon scanning or demand signalling to identify a need for research methods, rather than identifying emerging ones, could drive innovation by encouraging cross-pollination of ideas and adoption of approaches from adjacent fields, ultimately accelerating patient access and improving patient outcomes. The search strategy was designed to be targeted, aiming for specificity using the keyword ‘horizon scanning’. Horizon scanning is often described as a methodology that falls under the broader umbrella term ‘foresight’, and so it is possible that by omitting this, some relevant records may not have been identified. However, testing the impact of this during an earlier search development stage found that the term foresight generated many irrelevant records, which would not be considered at the full-text stage. As the aim of this work was to map what has been conducted and reported in this area rather than exhaustively identify detailed information relating to each data item, authors were not contacted for additional information. Lastly, only studies written in English were eligible for inclusion, studies excluded based on language are transparently reported in Appendix 3. It is difficult to assess the impact of excluding both articles on the results given translation issues; However, it appears one was relevant to National security in the Netherlands, and the other appears to be a review of horizon scanning methods used for HTA worldwide and in Germany. The lack of standardised reporting led to difficulties in assessing eligibility, extracting data, and categorising the results. To mitigate this, multiple team discussions to derive consensus were relied upon. To ensure robust data extraction, one person extracted the data, and three other reviewers checked each data item for agreement. As mentioned, reporting standards are being developed and this should support future mapping work45. Despite following current guidance for conducting a scoping review, including the use of recognised measures to reduce bias and error, as with any secondary research, it is possible that relevant studies may not have been identifiable in the databases searched or were indexed in ways that our search would not have detected. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore if and how horizon scanning is being used to identify research methods. Our findings suggest there is limited horizon scanning work being undertaken to systematically identify emerging research methods that may be important in the future. Of particular note, dedicated horizon scanning for research methods in health and social care is lacking and may be occurring as an incidental finding to horizon scanning for other aspects. Additionally, interdisciplinary recommendations to plan, conduct and report horizon scanning studies are lacking or poorly cited. A lack of awareness about emerging methods limits the ability of relevant stakeholders to be prepared for evaluation and implementation. Further work is required to establish optimal horizon scanning approaches to identify research methods in health and social care and to understand better what type of information is useful to which key stakeholders and when. As this project is secondary methodological research, using available data in the published or grey literature, no ethical approval was sought. Open Sciences Framework (OSF): Horizon scanning approaches to identify emerging research methods. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4XQV6. The project contains the following data: - Open Sciences Framework: PRISMA-ScR checklist for ‘A scoping review of horizon scanning approaches used to identify emerging research methods’. DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/4XQV647. Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). The authors wish to thank Sonia Garcia Gonzalez-Moral, Research Associate at the NIHR Innovation Observatory, for peer reviewing the search strategy. The authors are grateful to Dr Gurdeep Sagoo for insightful comments, which helped to shape the reporting of this work and its consideration in relation to the wider research landscape. Faculty Opinions recommendedReferences - 1. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST): Horizon scan 2024: emerging policy issues for the next five years. Parliament U. 2024; [Accessed 06 March 2025]. Reference Source - 2. Vogler S: Ready for the future? Status of national and cross-country horizon scanning systems for medicines in European countries. Ger Med Sci. 2022; 20: Doc05, [Accessed 12 December 2022]. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text - 3. National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Innovation Observatory: Horison scanning reports: resources. Newcastle University, 2024; [Accessed 08 March 2025]. Reference Source - 4. Sage Research Methods: Research methods - methods map. [Accessed 22 January 2025]. Reference Source - 5. Tricco AC, Straus SE, Ghaffar A, et al.: Rapid reviews for health policy and systems decision-making: more important than ever before. Syst Rev. 2022; 11(1): 153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 6. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, et al.: Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012; 1(1): 10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 7. Vanderbeek AM, Bliss JM, Yin Z, et al.: Implementation of platform trials in the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2022; 112: 106625. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 8. Zanello G, Garrido-Estepa M, Crespo A, et al.: Targeting shared molecular etiologies to accelerate drug development for rare diseases. EMBO Mol Med. 2023; 15(7): e17159. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 9. GOV.UK: UK innovation strategy: leading the future by creating it. Department for Science. Innovation and Technology and Department for Business. Energy & Industrial Strategy. 2021; [Accessed 16 December 2024]. Reference Source - 10. National Health Service (NHS): The NHS long term plan. 2019; [Accessed 16 December 2024]. Reference Source - 11. GOV.UK: Life sciences vision. Office for Life Sciences DfS, Innovation and Technology and Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. 2021; [Accessed 16 December 2024]. Reference Source - 12. Bauer MS, Kirchner J: Implementation science: what is it and why should I care? Psychiatry Res. 2020; 283: 112376. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 13. Amog KPB, Courvoisier M, Mak M, et al.: The web-based "Right Review" tool asks reviewers simple questions to suggest methods from 41 knowledge synthesis methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022; 147: 42–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 14. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al.: Scoping reviews. Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2024. 2020. Publisher Full Text - 15. O’Connor N, Eastaugh CH, Lister J, et al.: Horizon scanning approaches to identify emerging research methods: a scoping review protocol. 2024; [Accessed 13 January 2025]. http://www.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4XQV6 - 16. Simpson and the EuroScan International Network (EuroScan): A toolkit for the identification and assessment of new and emerging health technologies. University of Birmingham, 2009; [Accessed 04 December 2024]. Reference Source - 17. Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, et al.: PRISMA2020: an R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and open synthesis. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022; 18(2): e1230. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 18. Hines P, Yu LH, Guy RH, et al.: Scanning the horizon: a systematic literature review of methodologies. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(5): e026764. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 19. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 20. Abdelhady AA, Seuss B, Jain S, et al.: New and emerging technologies in paleontology and paleobiology: a horizon scanning review. J Afr Earth Sci. 2024; 210: 105155. Publisher Full Text - 21. Hofmann GE: Ecological epigenetics in marine metazoans. Front Mar Sci. 2017; 4. 4. Publisher Full Text - 22. Musche M, Adamescu M, Angelstam P, et al.: Research questions to facilitate the future development of European long-term ecosystem research infrastructures: a horizon scanning exercise. J Environ Manage. 2019; 250: 109479. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 23. Novak BJ, Fraser D, Maloney TH: Transforming ocean conservation: applying the genetic rescue toolkit. Genes (Basel). 2020; 11(12): 209. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 24. Tomsett C, Leyland J: Remote sensing of river corridors: a review of current trends and future directions. River Res Appl. 2019; 35(7): 779–803. Publisher Full Text - 25. Bockhold S, Foley S, Rainford L, et al.: Future technologies and projected innovations for medical radiation applications and radiation protection: the EURAMED ROCC-N-ROLL horizon scanning survey. Phys Med. 2022; 104(Supplement 1): S99. Publisher Full Text - 26. Fennessy P, Kearney B, Mundy L, et al.: OP65 genomics: from horizon scanning to national health policy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018; 34(S1): 23–4. Publisher Full Text - 27. Fitak RR, Antonides JD, Baitchman EJ, et al.: The expectations and challenges of wildlife disease research in the era of genomics: forecasting with a horizon scan-like exercise. J Hered. 2019; 110(3): 261–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 28. Giuffre G, Sisti LG, Ricci A: FRESHER and RARE 2030: scanning the horizon emerging trends in health and healthcare. Eur J Public Health. 2020; 30(Supplement_5): ckaa165.182. Publisher Full Text - 29. Otsuka K, Takata T, Sasaki H, et al.: Horizon scanning in tissue engineering using citation network analysis. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2023; 57(4): 810–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 30. Parker M, Acland A, Armstrong HJ, et al.: Identifying the science and technology dimensions of emerging public policy issues through horizon scanning. PLoS One. 2014; 9(5): e96480. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 31. Patiño J, Whittaker RJ, Borges PAV, et al.: A roadmap for island biology: 50 fundamental questions after 50 years of The Theory of Island Biogeography. J Biogeogr. 2017; 44(5): 963–83. Publisher Full Text - 32. Pervez Bharucha Z, Attwood S, Badiger S, et al.: The top 100 questions for the sustainable intensification of agriculture in India’s rainfed drylands. Int J Agric Sustain. 2021; 19(2): 106–27. Publisher Full Text - 33. Provencher JF, Liboiron M, Borrelle SB, et al.: A Horizon Scan of research priorities to inform policies aimed at reducing the harm of plastic pollution to biota. Sci Total Environ. 2020; 733: 139381. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 34. Pustkowiak S, Kwieciński Z, Lenda M, et al.: Small things are important: the value of singular point elements for birds in agricultural landscapes. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2021; 96(4): 1386–403. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 35. Robison R, Skjølsvold TM, Hargreaves T, et al.: Shifts in the smart research agenda? 100 Priority questions to accelerate sustainable energy futures. J Clean Prod. 2023; 419: 137946. Publisher Full Text - 36. Tew ER, Ambrose-Oji B, Beatty M, et al.: A horizon scan of issues affecting UK forest management within 50 years. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research. 2023; 97(3): 349–62. Publisher Full Text - 37. Trofimova T, Alexandroff SJ, Mette MJ, et al.: Fundamental questions and applications of sclerochronology: community-defined research priorities. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2020; 245: 106977. Publisher Full Text - 38. Revive & Restore Ocean Genomics Horizon Scan: Ocean genomics horizon scan. Revive & Restore, 2019; [Accessed 21 November 2024]. Reference Source - 39. Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, et al.: How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2021; 133(5): 285–96. Publisher Full Text - 40. Pretty J, Sutherland WJ, Ashby J, et al.: The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture. Int J Agric Sustain. 2010; 8(4): 219–36. Publisher Full Text - 41. Sutherland WJ, Clout M, Depledge M, et al.: A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2015. Trends Ecol Evol. 2015; 30(1): 17–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 42. Sutherland WJ, Fleishman E, Mascia MB, et al.: Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy. Methods Ecol Evol. 2011; 2(3): 238–47. Publisher Full Text - 43. Kole A, Hedley V, Ricci A, et al.: D4.2 Report on trends and drivers of change for RD resulting from stakeholder interviews and workshop January 2020. 2020; [Accessed 22 November 2024]. Reference Source - 44. Khan S, Fairbairn R, Potter R, et al.: Horizon scanning methods for identification of new and repurposed medicines for stakeholders in the United Kingdom. Futures & Foresight Science. 2025; 7(1): e210. Publisher Full Text - 45. Gonzalez-Moral SG, Khan SK, Fairbairn R, et al.: Developing a checklist for transparent reporting of items in horizon scanning studies. Open Science Framework (OSF). 2024; [Accessed 16 December 2024]. Reference Source - 46. O’Connor N, Eastaugh CH, Lister J, et al.: Horizon scanning approaches to identify emerging methods: data extraction. 2024; [Accessed 04/09/2025]. https://osf.io/4xqv6/files/osfstorage - 47. O’Connor N, Eastaugh CH, Lister J, et al.: PRISMA-ScR checklist for a scoping review of horizon scanning approaches used to identify emerging research methods. OSF. 2024; [Accessed 04/09/2025]. https://osf.io/4xqv6/ Author details Author details 1 NIHR Innovation Observatory, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, NE1 7RU, UK 2 York Trial Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England, YO10 5DD, UK 2 York Trial Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England, YO10 5DD, UK Nicole O'Connor Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Claire Eastaugh Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Jennie Lister Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Catriona McDaid Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Catherine Hewitt Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Dawn Craig Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Gill Norman Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Four authors (NO’C, CE, GN and DC) are employed by Newcastle University through a grant funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Innovation Observatory, a national horizon scanning centre. Grant information This research resulted from work that is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Support Service (RSS). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright © 2025 O'Connor N et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. metrics VIEWS $counts.viewCount downloads Citations CITE how to cite this article O'Connor N, Eastaugh C, Lister J et al. A scoping review of horizon scanning approaches used to identify emerging research methods [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:86 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13981.1) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 24 Sep 2025 Views 0 How to cite this report: Soper AK. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review of horizon scanning approaches used to identify emerging research methods [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:86 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15198.r37642) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-86/v1#referee-response-37642 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-86/v1#referee-response-37642 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 28 Oct 2025 Approved VIEWS 0 This scoping review focused on horizons scanning to identify emerging methods across disciplines, finding an overall lack of horizons scanning, particularly in health and social care. The writing is very clear and concise. I have a few minor comments to ... Continue reading I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close This scoping review focused on horizons scanning to identify emerging methods across disciplines, finding an overall lack of horizons scanning, particularly in health and social care. The writing is very clear and concise. I have a few minor comments to consider in the following sections:

Patient and Public Involvement: Consider including a sentence about how this work can inform future involvement and engagement of knowledge users (patients and public) and why that's important. There also appears to be a typo: "days", likely instead of "ways".

Limitations: Another limitation may be the small number of included studies. Consider commenting on this limitation and the implications to generalizability.

Consider adding a period after 'Dr': Dr. Gurdeep Sagoo.

Patient and Public Involvement: Consider including a sentence about how this work can inform future involvement and engagement of knowledge users (patients and public) and why that's important. There also appears to be a typo: "days", likely instead of "ways".

Limitations: Another limitation may be the small number of included studies. Consider commenting on this limitation and the implications to generalizability.

Consider adding a period after 'Dr': Dr. Gurdeep Sagoo. - Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes - Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes - Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes - Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: patient and public involvement in research, childhood disability, implementation science, qualitative research, inclusive education CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Soper AK. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review of horizon scanning approaches used to identify emerging research methods [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:86 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15198.r37642) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-86/v1#referee-response-37642 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-86/v1#referee-response-37642 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Views 0 How to cite this report: Zennaro F. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review of horizon scanning approaches used to identify emerging research methods [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:86 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15198.r37409) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-86/v1#referee-response-37409 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-86/v1#referee-response-37409 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 08 Oct 2025 Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 The paper is well written and clearly presented. The topic is of interest and the overall structure is coherent. However, I believe that several minor revisions could further improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. My specific suggestions are ... Continue reading I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close The paper is well written and clearly presented. The topic is of interest and the overall structure is coherent. However, I believe that several minor revisions could further improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. My specific suggestions are as follows: - Abstract The main focus of the paper is not entirely evident from the abstract. While the abstract mentions results in the field of medicine, the body of the paper also extends to environmental science and other related areas. Please revise the abstract to better reflect the overall scope and main contribution of the study. - Methods It would be beneficial to include the key terms or keywords of the research within the Methods section, in order to improve transparency and facilitate understanding of the study design. - Structure and Indexing Please check the numbering and indexing of the sections (e.g., 1; 1.1; 1.1.1) to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript. - Discussion - As the original topic relates to health science and social care, I suggest adding a subsection in the Discussion that addresses the potential and lessons learned from the use of horizon scanning in health science and social care. - In the Limitations subsection, please highlight that the inclusion of only five papers limits the statistical strength and generalizability of the findings. - Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly - Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes - Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly - Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: climate change, environmental science CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Zennaro F. Reviewer Report For: A scoping review of horizon scanning approaches used to identify emerging research methods [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:86 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15198.r37409) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-86/v1#referee-response-37409 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-86/v1#referee-response-37409 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: - Approved - Approved with reservations - Not approved | Invited Reviewers | || |---|---|---| | 1 | 2 | | | Version 1 24 Sep 25 | read | read | Sign up for content alerts You are now signed up to receive this alert Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' - Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. - You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. - You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). - You work at the same institute as any of the authors. - You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. - You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. - You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with NIHR Open Research Already registered? Sign in close Error If you are a previous or current NIHR award holder, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from NIHR Open Research. We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to NIHR Open Research Sign In If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. Email us for further assistance. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here. You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here. Code not correct, please try again Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait...