Agricultural innovation holds significant potential to enhance productivity, sustainability, and rural livelihoods; yet many innovations remain confined to research output rather than achieving farmer adoption. A useful precedent for addressing this type of pipeline fragmentation exists in the health sciences, where translational research models have systematically tracked innovations from discovery to practice. Despite decades of investment in agricultural innovation systems, no framework traces the full journey from research output to sustained farmer adoption with the sequential precision applied in biomedical translational research. To examine where the innovation pipeline fractures and why, this paper presents a PRISMA-Scr scoping review of 357 studies screened from 14,303 records across Scopus, Web of Science, CAB Abstracts, Google Scholar, and grey literature repositories, coded against four-stage translational model: RIS (Research and Innovation Supply), VAL (Validation), BRAND (Branding and Packaging), and ADOPT (Adoption and Diffusion). Here we show for the first time that 60.8% of agricultural innovation studies address only a single translational stage, that validation remains the least documented function at 18.5%, and that the translational vocabulary that transformed biomedicine remains virtually absent as a named paradigm in agriculture. Studies incorporating BRAND activities covered an average of 44% more pipeline stages, identifying farmer-facing communication as the critical coupling between the technocratic and sociocultural dimensions of innovation, while Indonesia's 10 included studies reveal a complete validation gap and near-total absence of strategically designed BRAND activities. We propose the TRAIN (Translational Research-to-Adoption Innovation Nexus) framework, which conceptualizes the innovation pipeline as functionally distinct wagons on a directed train, enabling policymakers and researchers to diagnose translational gaps relative to specific thematic priorities and design programs that connect research to farmer reality.
Finger millet is increasingly recognized as a climate-smart cereal with considerable potential to enhance food and nutritional security in sub-Saharan Africa. Its exceptional nutritional value, drought tolerance and adaptation to marginal environments have renewed interest in the crop as a resilient component of sustainable food systems. Research on finger millet has largely focused on disease resistance, particularly fungal diseases such as blast, as well as drought tolerance, striga resistance, yield improvement, agronomic practices, seed systems and value addition, while belowground biotic constraints, such as plant-parasitic nematodes (PPNs), remain largely overlooked. Recent studies from Kenya have revealed several communities of PPNs associated with finger millet, including economically important species capable of reducing plant growth and grain yield. These findings challenge the long-held perception that finger millet is inherently resilient to soil-borne pests and identify nematodes as an underappreciated contributor to persistent yield gaps. In this perspective, we synthesize recent advances in the diversity, taxonomy, pathogenicity, diagnostics, and sustainable management of PPNs associated with finger millet and discuss their implications for crop improvement and climate-resilient agriculture. We argue that integrating nematode surveillance, accurate diagnostics, host resistance, soil health and environmentally sustainable management into finger millet research and development is essential for maximizing productivity and resilience. Finally, we highlight key research priorities and policy interventions needed to incorporate nematode science into breeding, agronomy and agricultural policy, thereby supporting sustainable intensification and resilient food systems in Africa and other finger millet-growing regions.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become essential tools for synthesizing evidence to guide agricultural policy and practice, yet whether these syntheses are themselves conducted with sufficient rigor has rarely been systematically assessed. This study provides a field-wide assessment of reporting quality in agricultural evidence synthesis, examining whether existing reviews are conducted with sufficient transparency and rigor to support the policy and practice decisions they are meant to inform. We drew a random sample of 244 systematic reviews and meta-analyses from a bibliometric dataset of 1709 articles published between 1997 and 2023, evaluating reporting quality using a 12-indicator rubric across four domains: reproducibility, dual-purpose infrastructure, bias mitigation, and best practices. Articles achieved only 32% of the maximum possible quality score. Dual screening appeared in just 4% of articles, only 18% assessed included-study quality, and only 12% registered a protocol in advance. Systematic reviews substantially outperformed meta-analyses across nearly every domain, suggesting many researchers treat meta-analysis as a standalone statistical procedure rather than a component embedded within systematic review. Quality improved between 2009 and 2016 but has since plateaued despite rapid publication growth. Guideline adherence was the strongest predictor of quality, explaining 20% of observed variance, a far larger effect than journal prestige or international collaboration, indicating that the deficiencies identified are remediable rather than structural and carry real consequences for the reliability of evidence informing agricultural policy. We propose the CREDIT framework, targeting Collaboration, Resources, Education, Documentation, Integration, and Tools, as a coordinated response to the barriers underlying these gaps.
Digital technologies (DTs) and artificial intelligence are widely promoted as enablers of sustainability transitions in agri-food systems, yet evidence on their realized and expected sustainability effects remains fragmented. We synthesize how sustainability impacts of DTs are assessed across agri-food systems and which effects, trade-offs and net outcomes are reported. We conceptualize sustainability assessments as practices, manifesting in configurations of data sources, analytics, and indicators, that shape what counts as ‘sustainable’ and determine systems governance. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we conduct a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed journal articles (2010–2024). The final sample comprises 56 studies, which we analyze using structured content analysis. Most assessments focus on primary production (79%) and emphasize environmental and economic outcomes, while social sustainability is underrepresented. Life-cycle approaches dominate, but studies often rely on narrow system boundaries, case-study designs and limited data transparency, constraining replicability and external validity. Reported impacts are predominantly positive and centre on resource-use efficiency gains and associated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. Evidence on trade-offs, rebound effects and distributional consequences is scarce. We conclude that current assessment practices provide limited guidance for system-level sustainability transitions. Future research should develop standardized, transparent and multi-actor frameworks, strengthen indicators and data for social sustainability, and adopt systemic and counterfactual designs to capture interactions, feedbacks and net sustainability effects across entire agri-food systems.
