<p>We extend Lakatos’s classical dichotomy of research programmes—progressive vs. degenerative—by introducing a neutral third category: the stagnant research programme. First, a critical examination of the primary literature with its often criticized definitional gaps justifies such a category. By deriving general criteria for stagnation, we clearly distinguish stagnant programmes from those that are progressive or degenerative. An empirical cross-check is subsequently employed for support: Both a series of examples from fundamental physics and a general analysis of today’s research landscape also suggest on an empirical level the need to go beyond the traditional Lakatosian conception. Attributing stagnation is entirely in line with Lakatos’ original intentions, which aimed not to hastily discard promising research but to exercise patience until the lifting of certain external constraints potentially enables empirical progress once again.</p>