Between 2010 and 2019, ETR&D experienced increased publication of a specific type of research that does not provide useful knowledge to the instructional design field. This type of research is research to prove, which entails pitting an incumbent, “traditional” learning experience against a new, innovative learning experience that lacks maturity. Additionally, under closer inspection, these new, innovative learning experiences show significant gaps of good design judgment, in terms of their alignment with the instructional theory framework. This type of research robs the instructional design field of important and useful data associated with effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal outcomes. To provide evidence for our claims, we reviewed 39 ETR&D articles between 1980 and 2019 and 41 articles in non-ETR&D journals between 2009 and 2018 that represented traditional instruction comparisons. Our conclusion is that a change in ETR&D editorial policies around 2010, such as reviewers having more power than editors in determining which papers get published, led to the unintended consequences this paper reports. We provide recommendations for addressing this situation.

在2010年至2019年期间，ETR＆D经历了越来越多的特定类型研究的发表，而这些研究并未为教学设计领域提供有用的知识。这种类型的研究是要证明的研究，需要将现有的“传统”学习经验与缺乏成熟度的新型创新学习经验相提并论。此外，在仔细检查下，这些新的创新学习经历就其与教学理论框架的一致性而言，还表现出良好的设计判断力的巨大差距。这种类型的研究剥夺了与有效性，效率和吸引力相关的重要和有用数据的教学设计领域。为证明我们的主张，我们审查了1980年至2019年之间的39篇ETR＆D文章和41篇非ETR＆D文章。2009年至2018年之间的D期刊代表传统教学比较。我们的结论是，在2010年左右ETR＆D编辑政策的变化（例如，审稿人在确定要发表哪些论文方面比编辑人员拥有更多的权力）导致了本文所报告的意想不到的后果。我们提供了解决这种情况的建议。