Views on the topic from an outsider, clarifying some things, some feedback and tips on how to move on from here
Introduction

First of all, as small disclaimer. Via PM's u/rogerbilly encouraged me to come on here to give constructive criticism and a few tips. I have the best intentions and I wish to be treated that way.

As denoted by the sidebar and bar and previous comments by u/rogerbilly, scientific research on the topic of UFOs is what you guys would want to have. I'll go though my points step by step, if there is anything I need to clarify afterwards I would be happy to do so.



The burden of proof

When it comes this subject you will probably see people bring this up a lot and I am one of those people who would do that as well. I find that there are a lot of claims about UFOs with little to no evidence backing them up. That is why in most cases skeptics will bring up the burden of proof. A skeptic, by the way, is someone who forms his conclusion from available data, if there is not enough data supporting something then the claim will most likely be seen as if it is not true. So, whenever someone makes a positive claim, they will have to back it up with evidence to support it. Providing the evidence is primarily on the person making the claim. While I can't go into every minute detail on how to do this, I can give a good overview on how to provide good evidence. The next few paragraphs will have some feedback and tips on how to do this.



A scientific basis for UFO research

In order for UFO research to move in the right direction, a scientific basis will first have to be established. In order to do this someone adept in other fields would have to a doctoral thesis with positive results at the minimum to be able to even have an attempt at this. In order for this to work, the person should be able to show the rest of the scientific community that UFO research is scientifically relevant. In addition to that, especially their followed method should be clear enough that amature UFO spotters can use it. In addition to the thesis, if more events pop up, the person could write more articles on the subject, publish it and his observations peer-reviewed, this will only help towards establishing a good basis. Due to the nature of UFO sightings this is not an easy task however, I'll go into more detail later on.



The scientific method

The scientific method is structured in such a way that everyone, even witnesses can make use of it, you don't have to be a scientist to be able to do so. To make this clear, I'll say it again. The scientific method is structured in such a way that anyone can use it. Let's have a look at it's structure to clear up a few things:

Observation: In most cases this step has already happened for the spotter, the have seen an UFO.

Question: The spotter might have a question regarding the sighting, this could be what the object is, where it came from or a different question. This step also seems to be fine so far.

Hypothesis: This is where a lot of people seem to get stuck I think. Since we are talking about unidentified flying objects it would by definition be intellectually dishonest to assume it is something in particular. In addition to that, often times there are natural or human causes for specific events that often get ignored.

Prediction: Due to the unpredictable nature of UFO sightings and the lack of information it is very often very difficult to make an accurate prediction, the app featured on this subreddit does seem like a good way to keep track of sightings.

Test: For the test, the same equipment as used in step 1 can be used to do the testing. When it comes to presenting evidence it is not necessarily about the equipment but more about the used methodology.

Iterate: Repeat the process. In order to do this the observer has to go back to the previous steps and go through them again, with either changing or refining the hypothesis or by leaving it as is to confirm the tested event is predictable. Additionally, reproducability is an important part of this as well. If multiple people can confirm the same thing and make accurate predictions on future sightings then you could be on the right path.



Scientific inquiry and scientific relevance

Once both of the above things are taken care of, the chances of being able to get legit scientific inquiry on further observations is going to be much larger than it is now. There is however one more thing that is very important to consider. There should be very good reasons to put effort into this subject. In most cases the relevance is usually with the spotter because they would really like to know what they saw. However, when it comes to scientific research, the inquiry and it's results should be relevant on more than just a personal level before people will start to look into it. So, the question would be how humanity would benefit from research in this particular field.



Final words

I hope this shows my view on the topic and that it helps with further discussions and potential research. If you've got any questions, feel free to ask them in the comments.