An interesting question Muhammad - but not one that can be definitively answered. No individual or organisation can dictate - that is enough research in that area. It would have to occur by a natural process i.e. editors start rejecting manuscripts on a certain subject and/or funding bodies stop allocating funds for projects.

That said, and as Dickson suggests, good quality research (even if the topic field has been extensively researched) is still good quality research. Researchers have to present what is original about their research to convince their audience that it is worthy of publication. The other thing to consider is that 'what is well researched today and fades will someday need researching again' as social and academic contexts change over relatively short periods of time.

When the area of research is fully exploited and researchers start re-inventing the wheels. This often happens with lazy researchers.

Yet, I don't think there can be TRULY a full exhaustation of a research field. Researchers must be innovative enough in their studies. These days pursuing interdisciplinary studies yields richer, original ideas in specific fields of inquiry.

Interesting points.

1. Lazy researchers.

2. Inter disciplinary research

Thanks

An interesting question Muhammad - but not one that can be definitively answered. No individual or organisation can dictate - that is enough research in that area. It would have to occur by a natural process i.e. editors start rejecting manuscripts on a certain subject and/or funding bodies stop allocating funds for projects.

That said, and as Dickson suggests, good quality research (even if the topic field has been extensively researched) is still good quality research. Researchers have to present what is original about their research to convince their audience that it is worthy of publication. The other thing to consider is that 'what is well researched today and fades will someday need researching again' as social and academic contexts change over relatively short periods of time.

Much interesting replies with each answer opening new dimensions for duscussion.and who knows may open new dimensions for many people to research their topics and field in a new way.

Just as the way one cannot say 'this is the end of knowledge' a true researcher cannot say 'there is no need for further research in this topic'. Sometimes ground breaking innovations come only after exhausting the easy and simple techniques. So it can never be 'end of thinking and exploring'

I am amazed at the replies. Thankyou for interesting contributions.

It is legitimate to repeat a research analysis but use a slightly different population, or different statistical methods, to see if the results are generally the same or not. If not, then that opens the door to look for reasons why. This is especially true in epidemiology. Also anything involving 'social' research--- including many basic psychology studies---can give different results at different time periods because values and beliefs change from generation to generation.

Very stimulating question attracting such nice responses...thanks Muhammad. Even though external factors such as funding , priority of the researcher and/or his/her affiliate institution, (perceived) relevance of the topic could be the factors that may affect such decisions. Single person/institution may think that its enough but some other may pick up the very topic as still there is need. Topic given up for a certain period of time for whatsoever reasons may revive again.

Einstein says that creativity is adding subtracting dividing and multiplying things already existed and thus by this process new things are created.

Look at 26 letters of english and we have thousands of words by combining them in different manner.

I think when it is guidelines with high grade of evidence