When I first started digging into duplicate review fatigue rate statistics, I didn’t expect it to feel so much like untangling a messy drawer full of mismatched socks — you keep finding the same patterns over and over, just slightly crumpled in different ways. Whether it’s in software bug tracking, academic peer reviews, or support ticket systems, duplicates sneak in and pile up, demanding the same mental energy again and again. For reviewers, this isn’t just a minor annoyance; it’s a constant drain that slows progress, clouds judgment, and sometimes makes you dread opening the queue at all. Over time, the repetition becomes more than a data problem — it becomes a human one, where burnout quietly takes root. Understanding these patterns, and quantifying them, is the first step toward making review work feel purposeful again instead of like an endless loop.
Top 20 Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics 2025 (Editor's Choice)
| # | Definition of Duplicate | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Multiple bug reports describing the same issue with identical reproduction steps. | 42% of bug reports marked as duplicates in a Mozilla dataset. |
| 2 | Two or more reports linked to the same root cause in the tracking system. | 28% duplicate rate across Eclipse project bug tracker. |
| 3 | Reports tagged “duplicate” by triage team after manual verification. | 15% duplicates in Apache HTTP Server bug database. |
| 4 | Similar issues identified by automated text similarity tools. | 35% duplicate detection success rate using NLP-based triage. |
| 5 | Reports sharing at least 80% text similarity to an existing report. | 18% duplicates in a mobile app QA cycle. |
| 6 | Any ticket closed with a resolution status “Duplicate”. | 22% duplicates in Jira-managed enterprise projects. |
| 7 | Reports with identical error codes and system logs. | 31% duplicates in internal IT helpdesk logs. |
| 8 | Reports referencing the same GitHub issue ID. | 12% duplicates in open-source collaborative projects. |
| 9 | Reports that link to an already fixed issue in release notes. | 9% duplicates during post-release triage. |
| 10 | Customer support tickets merged into an existing issue thread. | 25% duplicates in SaaS product support cases. |
| 11 | Reports containing same screenshot hash or media file metadata. | 14% duplicates in e-commerce defect reporting. |
| 12 | Reports mentioning identical crash signature hashes. | 19% duplicates in crash report analytics systems. |
| 13 | Two reports from different users for the same unresolved issue. | 39% duplicates in large-scale beta testing campaigns. |
| 14 | Reports matched via AI-driven bug clustering algorithms. | 26% duplicates auto-detected in cloud-based QA workflows. |
| 15 | Reports with matching stack trace outputs. | 17% duplicates in backend infrastructure bug logs. |
| 16 | Issues with overlapping titles and keywords above a set threshold. | 30% duplicates in academic peer review management systems. |
| 17 | Reports with matching test case IDs. | 20% duplicates in game QA testing phases. |
| 18 | Reports with identical hardware/software environment specifications. | 23% duplicates in IoT device firmware testing. |
| 19 | Support requests already answered in internal knowledge base. | 34% duplicates in enterprise tech support queries. |
| 20 | Reports for issues already logged within the last 30 days. | 27% duplicates in agile sprint QA cycles. |
Top 20 Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics 2025
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate statistics#1 — 42% duplicates in a Mozilla dataset
This level of duplication overwhelms triage queues and forces reviewers to re-read the same problem framed slightly differently. Repeated context-switching increases cognitive load and slows down decision speed. It also inflates notification volume, which many reviewers experience as “spam fatigue.” Over time, reviewers start skimming, which raises the risk of missing truly novel reports. Deflection tactics like auto-suggesting similar issues before submission can cut this rate substantially.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#2 — 28% duplicates across an Eclipse tracker
At nearly a third of all tickets, a reviewer’s first action is often to search for a canonical. That “search first” step, repeated many times per day, is a classic fatigue amplifier. When duplicates are common, SLAs slip because the same people are constantly doing closure hygiene. Clearer issue templates and mandatory environment fields reduce near-duplicate phrasing. A lightweight “possible duplicate” banner at submission can prevent many of these.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#3 — 15% duplicates in an Apache HTTP Server database
Even a modest duplicate rate compounds across large volumes. Reviewers face micro-delays confirming whether a report is genuinely new. Those checks add up to hours per week of low-leverage work. Tagging discipline and an agreed canonicalizing rule (“link to master issue and close fast”) minimize drag. Publishing a “hot issues” list also lowers accidental repeats.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#4 — 35% caught by NLP-based similarity tools
Automation can surface likely duplicates early, but reviewers still verify matches. Verification fatigue happens when precision/recall isn’t tuned and false positives are frequent. Regular retraining with fresh labeled pairs keeps suggestions relevant. Pair NLP with UI nudges showing top three likely matches pre-submit. The goal is to shift effort to authors rather than reviewers.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#5 — 18% duplicates defined by ≥80% text similarity
High textual similarity is a useful heuristic, but near-duplicates with different wording still slip through. Reviewers must compare steps, logs, and affected versions to be sure. That cross-checking is cognitively expensive in noisy trackers. Encourage reporters to paste exact stack traces and build IDs to improve machine matchability. Structured fields beat prose for reducing reviewer effort.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#6 — 22% tickets closed with “Duplicate” resolution in enterprise Jira
Enterprise teams often have many parallel squads, which increases collision risk. Without a single “intake” view, similar tickets proliferate across projects. Reviewers then spend time cross-linking and negotiating ownership. A shared triage hour and cross-project search by default cut redundant inflow. Clear ownership maps (“who owns what”) further reduce duplicate routing churn.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#7 — 31% duplicates matched by identical error codes/logs
Log-signature matching is powerful, but only if reporters include diagnostics. Reviewers tire of asking for missing logs and reproductions. Build the reporter workflow to automatically attach logs and environment snapshots. When evidence is complete, reviewers can close or merge in seconds. That speed directly lowers perceived fatigue.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#8 — 12% duplicates in open-source GitHub projects linked to the same issue
Lower rates can still be painful when maintainer time is scarce. Every redundant ping resets attention and inbox context. Issue templates that prompt “did you search existing issues?” help, but must be visible and friendly. Pinning canonical issues and using Discussions for FAQs deflects repeats. Label hygiene keeps search results trustworthy for newcomers.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#9 — 9% duplicates during post-release triage
After launches, many users report the same visible defect. Reviewers face surge conditions and triage queues balloon. A prewritten “known issue—tracking here” macro saves minutes per ticket. Status pages and in-app banners dramatically reduce duplicate submissions. Surge playbooks keep reviewer stress and fatigue manageable.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#10 — 25% support cases merged into existing SaaS issues
Support and engineering often operate in separate tools, creating parallel duplicates. Reviewers must reconcile threads before any technical work starts. Bi-directional linking and a shared canonical issue reduce rework. Training support to search canonicals first protects engineering focus time. Clear customer-facing updates reduce the incentive to open new cases.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#11 — 14% duplicates flagged by matching screenshot or media hashes
Visual evidence is a strong duplicate signal, but reviewers still confirm context. Hashing automates detection and lowers search time. Require uploads during report creation to increase match coverage. A gallery of “recent known issues” with thumbnails helps reporters self-select the right thread. Less guesswork equals less reviewer fatigue.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#12 — 19% duplicates in crash-report analytics by signature
Crash pipelines can group by signature, but version drift complicates triage. Reviewers must check whether it’s the same underlying bug or a regression variant. Enforcing strict symbolication and version tagging reduces ambiguity. Auto-assignment to owners of the primary crash thread speeds closure. Fast closures keep queues short and minds fresh.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#13 — 39% duplicates during large beta programs
Betas generate concentrated feedback windows with many repeats. Reviewers face alert storms and repetitive triage decisions. A “known issues” pinned list inside the beta app prevents re-openings. Rate-limiting identical submissions within a time window reduces bursts. Dedicated duplicate wranglers protect core reviewers from burnout.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#14 — 26% auto-detected via AI clustering in cloud QA
Clustering groups similar reports so reviewers can merge in batches. Without good naming and canonical selection, clusters still create decision fatigue. Establish a canonical-selection rubric (impact, clarity, completeness). Provide one-click “merge cluster into canonical” actions to compress toil. Measure success by reviewer minutes saved, not just duplicates found.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#15 — 17% duplicates matched by identical stack traces
Stack traces are high-signal but require consistent capture. Reviewers waste time when traces are truncated or redacted. Standardize logging levels in pre-release builds to maximize match quality. Educate reporters on how to obtain full traces quickly. Better signal shortens triage time and reduces fatigue.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#16 — 30% duplicates in peer-review management systems (keyword overlap)
Academic/workflow tools see many near-identical submissions or reviews. Editors and moderators must reconcile threads and redirect effort. Stronger pre-submission guidance and visible prior discussions reduce repeats. Automated “similar topics” surfacing helps reviewers avoid retyping feedback. Less redundancy keeps reviewer energy for substantive evaluation.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#17 — 20% duplicates tied to reused test case IDs in game QA
When testers reuse IDs, multiple findings collide under different titles. Reviewers must map them back to the same scenario, which is tedious. A registry that enforces uniqueness for test case references prevents this. Dashboards showing “open canonicals per test case” make collisions obvious. Cleaner metadata equals less reviewer fatigue.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#18 — 23% duplicates in IoT firmware testing with identical env specs
Hardware/firmware combos generate many repeats across devices. Reviewers spend time validating environment sameness before merging. Auto-captured device fingerprinting at report time short-circuits that work. A matrix view of “issues × device profiles” curbs accidental resubmits. When reporters can see their profile is already affected, they don’t open new tickets.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#19 — 34% duplicates in enterprise tech support already answered in KB
If the knowledge base is good but hard to find, people still open tickets. Reviewers grow tired of copy-pasting the same solution links. Surface KB answers contextually as the customer types their request. Track deflection rate as a primary success metric for fatigue reduction. Better self-serve directly translates to happier reviewers.
Duplicate Review Fatigue Rate Statistics#20 — 27% duplicates for issues logged within the previous 30 days
Fresh issues are the most likely to be repeated because they’re top of mind. Reviewers slog through many “me too” reports during this window. A live “recently logged issues” widget at submission time curbs duplicates. Proactive comms (release notes, alerts, status pages) reduce new inflow. Shortening this high-risk window is the fastest way to lower fatigue.
Untangling the Knots Before They Wear Us Out
Looking at these numbers side by side, it’s impossible not to see the common threads — repetition, wasted effort, and the slow erosion of reviewer morale. Just as you wouldn’t keep folding the same socks ten times in a row, we shouldn’t accept triage processes that force people to rehash identical issues over and over. The solution isn’t just in better tooling, though that helps; it’s also in designing workflows, communication channels, and submission checks that respect the reviewer’s time. By treating duplicate fatigue as a real, measurable cost, we can justify the investment in prevention, not just cleanup. In the end, fewer duplicates mean more energy for the work that actually moves projects forward — and that’s a win for everyone involved.
Sources
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/duplicate-issue-study.html
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18832
- https://thesai.org/Downloads/Volume12No1/Paper_67-A_Systematic_Study_of_Duplicate_Bug_Report.pdf
- https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.09976
- https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/15/8788
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.10376
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14797
-
https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09651
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230660779_The_bug_report_duplication_problem_An_exploratory_study
- https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3377811.3380404
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0164121216000546 ACM Digital Library+10ScienceDirect+10arXiv+10
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.10376 arXiv+4arXiv+4arXiv+4
- https://arxiv.org/html/2503.18832v1 arXiv+15arXiv+15ResearchGate+15
- https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/15/8788 MDPI+1
- https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?doi=372fe2cd722e91b800dd9d0da5db096f2c385e32&repid=rep1&type=pdf The Science and Information Organization+4CiteSeerX+4MDPI+4
-
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344480955_Duplicate_Bug_Report_Detection_Using_Dual-Channel_Convolutional_Neural_Networks SciTePress+15ResearchGate+15arXiv+15
- https://nathan-klein.github.io/publications/Klein-etal_14.pdf Nathan Klein
- https://www.cs.utsa.edu/~xwang/papers/icse08.pdf ScienceDirect+5UTSA Computer Science+5SciTePress+5
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230660779_The_bug_report_duplication_problem_An_exploratory_study
