Thursday 9 October 2025

Digital Science, a technology company serving stakeholders across the research ecosystem, has made a series of 23 recommendations for Australia’s research future in a report published today into the use of persistent identifiers (PIDs) in research.

The report is the Australian National Persistent Identifier (PID) Benchmarking Toolkit, available now on Figshare.

Commissioned by the Australian Research Data Commons (ARDC), Digital Science was tasked with developing a comprehensive PID benchmarking framework, and to conduct a benchmarking process that could be used to monitor the effectiveness of Australia’s National PID Strategy over time. The report, developed collaboratively with the ARDC, also benefited from consultation and engagement with the Australian research community. 

The lead author of the report, Digital Science’s VP of Research Futures, Simon Porter, will discuss the findings at two upcoming events in Brisbane, Australia: International Data Week (13-16 October) and the eResearch Australasia Conference (20-24 October).

A unique opportunity for Australian research

“This is the first time Australia’s National PID Strategy has been benchmarked, and it represents a unique opportunity for the Australian research system to benefit from that process,” Simon Porter said.

“What we’ve seen from the benchmarking is that Australia’s adoption of ORCID for research publications across the research sector has been extremely successful – and Australia is now third in the world for including DOI (Digital Object Identifier) links with dissertations published online.

“Workflows between publishers, institutional research information systems, and ORCID are also sufficiently strong, and we can see that Australia is well placed for a more comprehensive use of the ORCID infrastructure.

“However, our comprehensive review gave Australian research a mixed score card and recommended several changes and interventions to help strengthen the national strategy,” Mr Porter said.

“One of the key issues we’ve seen is that although Australian researchers are more engaged than the global average in the practice of data citation, they trail significantly behind their European peers.

“And while ORCID and ROR adoption has been strong for publications, the use of persistent identifiers with data sets and non-traditional research outputs (NTROs) remains the exception rather than the norm. As significant publishers of NTRO items in their own right, institutions should hold themselves to the same standards that they expect from publishers – all creators should ideally be described with an ORCID, and affiliation id (ROR).”

Natasha Simons, Director of National Coordination at the ARDC, congratulated Digital Science on the release of the National PID Benchmarking Toolkit. “The Australian Persistent Identifier Strategy is a critical national initiative to benefit the Australian people by strengthening our digital information ecosystem, the quality of our research and our capacity for effective research engagement, innovation and impact,” she said. “So it is essential to develop robust benchmarks that can track our progress and measure outcomes. The Toolkit provides us with exactly what’s needed.”

Recommendations to strengthen Australia’s research future

Some of the 23 recommendations made in the report include:

• Australian research has progressed to the point where ORCIDs should now be mandatory for all researchers; Australian Institutions should require ORCID registration within their institutional research information management systems.

• Australian research institutions should adopt the best practices of publishers to ensure that all authors are described by ORCIDs and affiliations via ROR.

• Australia should join international pressure to ensure that all publishers both record ORCID records and push the associated metadata into Crossref, and to avoid publishers that do not support ORCID workflows.

• Australia should consider a national policy for publishing dissertations with DOIs in institutional repositories, formalizing the use of ORCIDs for authors and their supervisors.

• Reports published by universities and their research centres should ideally be published in institutional repositories, with associated identifiers.

• Ongoing benchmarking analysis of PIDs should not ignore closed access material. (e.g., ignoring closed-access publications would result in missing 35% of Australia’s research output in 2024.)

• RAiDs (Research Activity Identifiers) should be added from “day one” of the creation of a funding grant.

• Grants funding organizations should create persistent identifiers “as soon as is practical” – including complete metadata – to enable research funding to be visible and tracked earlier.

“We welcome the opportunity to have led this benchmarking process, and we hope our recommendations will lead to some meaningful improvements within Australian research,” Mr Porter said.

“Importantly, we’ve also demonstrated that it is possible to produce a benchmarking toolkit for PIDs, and our work may have implications for other nations and their roadmaps towards a persistent identifier future.”

Background: The importance of PIDs

Persistent identifiers (PIDs) are unique numbered references to individual researchers and their work, which are connected to digital outputs and resources. They help connect researchers, projects, outputs, and institutions, and have become critical for:

• Making research inputs and outputs FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable)
• Enabling research outputs to be identified, tracked and cited
• Analyzing research impact
• Supporting national-scale research analytics

Widely used PIDs include ORCID iDs, DOIs, RORs, and emerging identifiers include DOIs for grants, and identifiers for projects (RAiDs).

Note: In the report, Simon Porter declares that he is also a member of the ORCID Board.

Discover more at International Data Week (13-16 October) and the eResearch Australasia Conference (20-24 October).

About Digital Science

Digital Science is an AI-focused technology company providing innovative solutions to complex challenges faced by researchers, universities, funders, industry and publishers. We work in partnership to advance global research for the benefit of society. Through our brands – Altmetric, Dimensions, Figshare, IFI CLAIMS Patent Services, metaphacts, OntoChem, Overleaf, ReadCube, Symplectic, and Writefull – we believe when we solve problems together, we drive progress for all. Visit digital-science.com and follow Digital Science on Bluesky, on X or on LinkedIn.

Media contact

David Ellis, Press, PR & Social Manager, Digital Science: Mobile +61 447 783 023, d.ellis@digital-science.com

The post Australian research well placed for adoption of National Persistent Identifier (PID) Strategy appeared first on Digital Science.

Integrated research intelligence is powering smarter, faster, fairer public sector outcomes

New Zealand’s public sector is tasked with delivering excellence under increasing scrutiny—balancing transparency, equity, and national priorities such as Te Ara Paerangi reforms. Yet too many agencies remain tied to patchwork systems and slow, manual processes.

This case study reveals how Dimensions is helping NZ agencies to:

• Consolidate research outputs, funding, and collaborations into one integrated view
• Cut reporting and assessment times by up to 90%
• Support PBRF reporting with robust, transparent data
• Deliver equity-focused insights for Māori health, Zero Carbon, and other national missions
  

Access the full case study and learn how Aotearoa’s public sector is moving from patchwork to precision in research assessment.

The post From patchwork to precision: Improving research assessment in Aotearo appeared first on Digital Science.

Singapore’s public sector has long been recognised as a leader in evidence-based policymaking.

But fragmented systems and manual review processes are still slowing down critical insights.

This case study explores how Dimensions is helping agencies in Singapore to:

• Unify grants, publications, patents, collaborators, and policy into a single secure platform
• Cut analysis cycles from weeks to hours, freeing staff for higher-value work
• Strengthen accountability and transparency with audit-ready records
• Deliver better alignment with national initiatives such as Smart Nation, RIE2025, and the Digital Government Blueprint
  

Unlock the full case study to see how Singapore agencies are making data work harder, faster, and smarter.

The post From data to decisions: Accelerating public sector outcomes in Singapore appeared first on Digital Science.

Access to Altmetric and Dimensions data is now boosted with Dimensions on BigQuery for researchers in the scientometrics field

Tuesday 22 July 2025

Digital Science today reaffirms its commitment to supporting the global scientometric research community and the study of scholarly literature, by relaunching its Scientometric Researcher Access to Data (SRAD) program.

This revitalized initiative will offer scientometric researchers streamlined, no-cost access to Digital Science’s Altmetric and Dimensions data, and is now further expanded by offering access to Dimensions on BigQuery.

The SRAD program is available to scientometrics researchers involved in non-commercial scientometric studies, empowering them to more easily answer system-wide research questions about scholarly literature and its impact.

To lead this important effort and build a thriving global community of expert users, Digital Science has appointed Kathryn Weber-Boer to the position of Director Scientometrics – Scientometric Researcher Engagement. Ms Weber-Boer brings deep expertise in scientometrics, academic engagement, and advanced analytics. 

Ms Weber-Boer said: “This program plays an important role in Digital Science’s commitment to open research and improving research. I am honoured to be in the position of driving strategic outreach, program design, and community leadership, to help researchers maximize the impact of Digital Science tools.

“By expanding access to Dimensions on GBQ, we’re excited to enable scientometrics researchers to answer complex questions with big data, exploring and linking more datapoints, and connecting our world-leading Dimensions data to other open datasets.

“The SRAD program is built around key principles of accessibility, responsible data use, and community empowerment. Through tailored training and dynamic community engagement, it’s our hope that we can contribute to driving innovation in the fields of Scientometrics, Research Policy, and Innovation Studies,” she said.

About Dimensions

Part of Digital Science, Dimensions hosts the largest collection of interconnected global research data, re-imagining research discovery with access to grants, publications, clinical trials, patents and policy documents all in one place. Follow Dimensions on Bluesky, X and LinkedIn.

About Altmetric

Altmetric is a leading provider of alternative research metrics, helping everyone involved in research gauge the impact of their work. We serve diverse markets including universities, institutions, government, publishers, corporations, and those who fund research. Our powerful technology searches thousands of online sources, revealing where research is being shared and discussed. Teams can use our powerful Altmetric Explorer application to interrogate the data themselves, embed our dynamic ‘badges’ into their webpages, or get expert insights from Altmetric’s consultants. Altmetric is part of the Digital Science group, dedicated to making the research experience simpler and more productive by applying pioneering technology solutions. Find out more at altmetric.com and follow @altmetric on X and @altmetric.com on Bluesky.

About Digital Science

Digital Science is an AI-focused technology company providing innovative solutions to complex challenges faced by researchers, universities, funders, industry and publishers. We work in partnership to advance global research for the benefit of society. Through our brands – Altmetric, Dimensions, Figshare, IFI CLAIMS Patent Services, metaphacts, OntoChem, Overleaf, ReadCube, Symplectic, and Writefull – we believe when we solve problems together, we drive progress for all. Visit digital-science.com and follow Digital Science on Bluesky, on X or on LinkedIn.

Media contact

David Ellis, Press, PR & Social Manager, Digital Science: Mobile +61 447 783 023, d.ellis@digital-science.com

The post Digital Science relaunches Scientometric Researcher Access to Data (SRAD) program appeared first on Digital Science.

Board reaffirms company’s commitment to Open Principles and innovation

Thursday 30 January 2025

Digital Science, a technology company serving stakeholders across the research ecosystem, is pleased to announce the formation of an external Advisory Board, to assist the company in improving its engagement and alignment with the communities it supports.

The panel of six experienced leaders has been chosen to represent as much of the diversity of Digital Science’s complex stakeholder environment as possible.

“Bringing technological change to the research sector requires a responsible approach, given the importance of the work of the community that we serve. Our announcement of Open Principles was an important step in ensuring that we set a bar for this responsibility. Introducing our Advisory Board is a further next step in demonstrating our commitment to continually improving our approach,” says Digital Science CEO Dr Daniel Hook.

“Our Advisory Board comprises global experts who bring a wealth of knowledge and experience. Their role is to provide strategic guidance and challenge to help us continue our path of innovation and openness, ensuring we’re providing the most responsible and reliable innovations to the communities that invest their trust in us.”

The Advisory Board’s six members include leaders from diverse fields including: research funding, strategy and policy; academic research management; pharmaceutical research and drug discovery; publishing and digital transformation; philanthropic leadership; and cutting-edge technology development.

The Digital Science Advisory Board members are:

• Jackie Hunter, Board Chair, Biocortex, Brainomix and the Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst
• Chonnettia Jones, President and Executive Director, Addgene
• Linda O’Brien, Adjunct Professor, Griffith University, Australia and CEO of the Stawell Underground Physics Laboratory
• Hemai Parthasarathy, formerly Head of Rapid Evaluation, Google X
• Benoit Schillings, Chief Technology Officer, Google X
• Joanne Sheppard, Advisor, Holtzbrinck Publishing Group (Digital Science’s parent company)

The Advisory Board is to meet four times a year to discuss key issues facing the wider research ecosystem, providing insights and recommendations on a variety of topics crucial to the strategic growth and operational excellence of Digital Science.

Advisory Board member Jackie Hunter says, “Digital Science is a global leader in its support for all aspects of research, such as its innovative products that foster open and collaborative research. It is an exciting time to be joining the Digital Science journey as an Advisory Board member, and I commend the company for its vision in appointing such a board.”

For more information about Digital Science’s Advisory Board and its senior leadership – including pics and bios – visit the Digital Science website: https://www.digital-science.com/management-and-advisory/

About Digital Science

Digital Science is an AI-focused technology company providing innovative solutions to complex challenges faced by researchers, universities, funders, industry and publishers. We work in partnership to advance global research for the benefit of society. Through our brands – Altmetric, Dimensions, Figshare, IFI CLAIMS Patent Services, metaphacts, OntoChem, Overleaf, ReadCube, Scismic, Symplectic, and Writefull – we believe when we solve problems together, we drive progress for all. Visit digital-science.com and follow Digital Science on Bluesky, on X or on LinkedIn.

Media contact

David Ellis, Press, PR & Social Manager, Digital Science: Mobile +61 447 783 023, d.ellis@digital-science.com

The post Digital Science announces external Advisory Board appeared first on Digital Science.

Digital Science is pleased to announce that Dr Raym Crow, a leading figure in mission-driven, sustainable open publishing models, has won the 2025 APE Award for Innovation in Scholarly Communication.

The award – a joint initiative between Digital Science and the Berlin Institute for Scholarly Publishing (BISP) – has been announced at the 20th Academic Publishing in Europe (APE) Conference in Berlin, Germany.

The APE award is presented to an individual who has brought innovation in scholarly communication to the community, through infrastructure, technology, business models, output on the topic, theory, or practice.

With more than 30 years’ experience in academic and scholarly publishing, Dr Crow has been described as the “intellectual godfather” of mission-driven, equitable, and sustainable open publishing models.

Based in Virginia, USA, Dr Crow is a senior consultant at SPARC and managing partner of Chain Bridge Group, which provides sustainability planning, open-access business models, and strategic publishing guidance to academic and other nonprofit organizations.

His influential portfolio of open models includes: Subscribe to Open (S2O) with Annual Reviews in 2019, Community Action Publishing (CAP) with PLOS in 2020, and Direct to Open (D2O) with MIT Press in 2021.

Speaking to the Berlin awards ceremony via a recorded message from the United States, Dr Crow said he was honored to receive the award.

“I’ve been very fortunate to partner with a number of progressive society and nonprofit publishers in implementing new open models. And, in truth, it’s those mission-driven publishers who deserve recognition for their willingness to experiment and adapt and accept risk as they seek to better align their business models with their missions. So please allow me to share this honor with them,” he said.

The winner receives prize money of €1,000 plus expenses towards attending an APE conference. This is the third year the award has been presented at the APE conference.

Digital Science CEO Dr Daniel Hook said: “The Academic Publishing in Europe Award celebrates the achievements of individuals, including those who have a history of innovative contributions over a long timescale, rather than only focusing on those who have recently and briefly been innovative. The judges acknowledged Raym Crow’s wealth of experience and his significant impact on the sustainability and growth of open scholarly publishing.

“The judges were impressed by Raym’s expertise in strategic business planning and open publishing models, which have been instrumental to the success of open access journals, monographs, digital humanities projects, and much more. He is a worthy recipient of this award and we thank him for his service to innovation in scholarly publishing.”

Also among the judging panel was Dr Liz Allen, Associate Director, Research Consulting, who said: “Raym is a very deserving winner of the prize! He has been at the forefront of experimentation and innovation in scholarly publishing over several decades and has been especially influential in helping organizations to navigate the challenges in their transition to open access publishing.”

About Digital Science

Digital Science is an AI-focused technology company providing innovative solutions to complex challenges faced by researchers, universities, funders, industry and publishers. We work in partnership to advance global research for the benefit of society. Through our brands – Altmetric, Dimensions, Figshare, IFI CLAIMS Patent Services, metaphacts, OntoChem, Overleaf, ReadCube, Scismic, Symplectic, and Writefull – we believe when we solve problems together, we drive progress for all. Visit digital-science.com and follow Digital Science on Bluesky, on X or on LinkedIn.

Media contact

David Ellis, Press, PR & Social Manager, Digital Science: Mobile +61 447 783 023, d.ellis@digital-science.com

The post Leader in mission-driven open publishing wins APE Award for Innovation in Scholarly Communication appeared first on Digital Science.

Joy acknowledges the need to have a term that refers to both the geographic region of the Southern hemisphere and also the economic Global South, especially when describing the differences in access to funding and research information, and opportunities to collaborate on a global scale due to a lack of visibility of research outputs or the inability to attend conferences half a world away.

However, using Africa as an example, Joy expresses concern about the fact that, while it is easy to use the four major commercial capitals of the continent to represent the entire region, the resulting outlook is underrepresenting vast swathes of communities across the continent, so that when solutions are proposed, they do not adequately serve the needs of the many, only of the few that were represented.

Do you have any ideas for how we can better represent our communities across the world? Get involved in the conversation on our many social media channels using the hashtag #TLDRShorts, and let us know if you’d like to suggest future contributors for our series or suggest some topics you’d like us to cover.

Subscribe now to be notified of each weekly release of the latest TL;DR Short, and catch up with the entire series here.

The post TL;DR Shorts: Joy Owango on the global south appeared first on Digital Science.

Author’s note about identify-first language

In this post, I am using identity-first language (e.g., ‘autistic person’) to honor the preference of many in the autism community who embrace their identity as an integral part of who they are. This approach reflects the values of empowerment and self-identification.

The rise of participatory research

There’s a growing recognition in the research community that individuals with lived experience of a condition or phenomenon can offer unique and valuable insights to the design of scientific studies. This collaborative approach is often referred to as participatory research and actively involves individuals with lived experience in all stages of the research process. Dimensions data (visualized below) reveals a steady increase in research articles using terms related to participatory research, suggesting a growing embrace of this approach within the scientific community. This shift reflects a move towards more inclusive research practices that empower individuals and communities to actively participate in knowledge creation that is directly relevant to the needs and priorities of those it aims to serve.

This post examines recent trends in a specific subset of participatory research that highlights lived experience contributions, as identified through publication authorship and acknowledgments. Focusing on autism research, I will delve into this trend by leveraging Dimensions data to analyze autistic authorship and acknowledged collaborative support. I’ll also compare the trajectory of this movement to similar trends in mental health and chronic illness research. Finally, I’ll discuss the implications of these findings for research impact and visibility and advocate for greater inclusion of those with lived experience in shaping future studies.

Characterizing autistic contributor representation in autism research articles

Methodology

Individual contributions to research studies are most often represented by the author and acknowledgements sections of publications. To investigate how autistic contributions are characterized in the literature, I leveraged the capabilities of the Dimensions database to search within the raw affiliation and acknowledgements fields of research publications. I used a combination of search strategies to focus on publications related to autism research and specifically targeted publications that either:

• Included autistic or neurodiverse authors in the raw affiliations section OR
• Acknowledged autistic people, patient networks, or advisory groups in their acknowledgments section AND
• Mentioned autism-related keywords in their full text

I examined author affiliations and acknowledgments to identify the most common language used to represent contributions from autistic people. I also explored bibliometric indicators such as citation counts, Field Citation Ratio (FCR), and Altmetric Attention Scores to assess the impact and reach of autism research with autistic contributors compared to the broader field of autism studies. Finally, I applied the same approaches to explore how lived experience contributions are characterized in other fields to identify avenues for potential future growth of autistic representation in research.

The rise of autistic authorship

To understand how autistic authors represent themselves, I conducted a qualitative review of author affiliations in participatory autism research to identify common phrases and terms. These range from explicit identifiers like “Autistic Researcher” or “Independent Autistic Scholar,” to affiliations with advocacy organizations such as the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, and roles emphasizing lived experience like “Expert by Experience” or “Lived Experience Professional.” While the number of publications authored by self-identified autistic individuals is currently limited (231), these publications offer valuable insights into the unique perspectives and contributions of autistic researchers.

This network visualization represents a preliminary attempt to identify leading neurodivergent researchers engaged in autism and neurodiversity scholarship. While the search terms were designed to highlight self-identified neurodivergent researchers and allies, it’s important to note that this method may not be fully accurate, and not all individuals included may identify as neurodivergent. The visualization highlights key figures like Sonia Johnson, Fiona Ng, and Dora Madeline Raymaker, who are known for their work in this area and could provide valuable leadership on best practices for autistic inclusion in research.

Highlighting specific examples of impactful, autistic-led research with high citation counts and Altmetric Attention Scores (a measure of online attention and engagement) demonstrates the influence of these authors on the broader research conversation.

Top cited research article among autistic lived experience authors:

• Nicolaidis, C., Raymaker, D., McDonald, K., Dern, S., Boisclair, W. C., Ashkenazy, E. & Baggs, A. (2013). Comparison of Healthcare Experiences in Autistic and Non-Autistic Adults: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey Facilitated by an Academic-Community Partnership. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28(6), 761–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2262-7

This study compares the healthcare experiences of autistic and non-autistic adults through an online survey, uncovering significant disparities for autistic people. Autistic collaboration involves authors from the Autistic Self Advocacy Network and the Academic Autistic Spectrum Partnership in Research and Education (AASPIRE). The high citation count of this study underscores its impact on shaping subsequent research around healthcare access and equity for autistic people.

Top Altmetric score and field citation ratio among autistic lived experience authors:

• Pearson, A. & Rose, K. (2021). A Conceptual Analysis of Autistic Masking: Understanding the Narrative of Stigma and the Illusion of Choice. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0043

This conceptual analysis investigates autistic masking as a response to stigma. Collaborators include Kieran Rose of The Autistic Advocate and Infinite Autism. The high Altmetric score and Field Citation Ratio (a measure of a study’s influence within its specific field) highlight the broad reach and impact of this work on online platforms and in further research.

These examples illustrate the power of autistic-led research to generate new insights and draw attention to often overlooked topics. Having examined the influence of key autistic researchers, it’s essential to explore the broader scope of autistic involvement in research, beyond authorship.

Broadening the scope: How do papers characterize autistic contributions beyond authorship?

While authorship provides a clear indicator of direct contribution, it doesn’t capture the full spectrum of autistic involvement in research. I expanded the analysis to include the acknowledgments section of publications to gain additional insight into how autistic people contribute to and shape research. Acknowledgments often reveal a wider range of roles and contributions, such as participation in advisory boards or community networks.

Expanding the analysis to include publications that acknowledge autistic or neurodiverse people, patient networks, or advisory groups in the acknowledgments section significantly broadened the dataset to 703 publications (as of September 25, 2024). Throughout this post, I use the term ‘autistic-contributor research’ to describe these studies where autistic individuals are explicitly acknowledged or listed as co-authors. This term represents a narrower subset of participatory autism research, specifically focusing on visible contributions through acknowledgments or authorship, rather than all potential forms of participatory involvement.

As the chart below illustrates, this expanded search demonstrates that autistic contributions extend beyond authorship and can be recognized in several different capacities.

Patient representation: The term “patient” emerges as a frequent descriptor in research acknowledgments. It can encompass diverse roles like “patient partner,” or refer to administrative functions related to patient involvement. However, the meaning of “patient” in the author affiliation and acknowledgements section can be ambiguous, sometimes signifying autistic individuals themselves, other times denoting individuals with different conditions within the study.

While widely used, “patient” has limitations in autism research. It centers on pathology and potentially overlooks the broader spectrum of autistic experiences beyond the clinical realm. Not all autistic people identify with this label, as it may imply illness or deficit. While “patient” may suggest autistic involvement in healthcare research, it also highlights the need for more precise language that recognizes the multifaceted roles of autistic people beyond the traditional patient-provider dynamic.

Independent researchers and advocates: The presence of terms like “advocate,” “self-advocate,” “lived experience,” and “independent researcher” highlights several ways autistic people contribute to research both as individuals and as part of broader groups of expertise. The use of “independent researcher” in affiliations suggests a recognition of the contributions made by autistic researchers working outside traditional academic institutions.

Group advisory roles: The prevalence of terms like “advisory board,” “advisory panel,” “community network”, and “working group” underscores the importance of structured mechanisms to ensure that autistic perspectives and lived experiences directly inform research design and implementation. These groups may not always be composed of autistic people, but they often have close ties to communities with lived experience and aim to represent those perspectives.

How do studies integrate autistic voices into the study design? Autistic-contributor research is more likely to use qualitative or mixed-methods approaches

Autistic-contributor studies in this dataset are significantly more likely to employ qualitative or mixed-methods approaches when compared to all autism research. Qualitative methods, such as interviews and focus groups, allow autistic people to express their unique perspectives and insights in their own words. Some examples of how studies may integrate autistic voices include co-creating research questions with autistic people, adapting methods to be more accessible, including autistic researchers on the team, and involving autistic participants in data analysis and communication of findings. These collaborative approaches can help studies be more directly relevant to the autism community.

Who is leading in these types of autistic-contributor collaborations?

It can be useful to explore leading organizations in this dataset to understand where and how investments in autistic-contributor collaborations are happening. Affiliation, funding, and geographic data in Dimensions highlight the United Kingdom’s prominent role in fostering research collaborations involving autistic people. The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) are the leading funders, while University College London and King’s College London are at the forefront of institutions publishing participatory approaches in this field. These data suggest a strong commitment within the UK to promoting inclusive research practices. However, it’s important to acknowledge that this analysis primarily reflects English-language publications, and there may be additional contributions in other languages that use different terminology to acknowledge autistic participation.

Comparing autistic-contributor autism research with all clinical autism research

What topics are addressed by autism research that acknowledges autistic partners in the author or acknowledgements fields?

In a concept analysis of autistic-contributor research literature, I found a clear emphasis on lived experience, health services, and support systems. Instead of primarily asking “What causes autism?” or “How can we diagnose autism?”, this research asks “How can we improve the lives of autistic people?”. This emphasis is reflected in the prominence of terms like “improve access” and “health system” in the autistic-contributor research network visualization above.

This focus contrasts with broader clinical autism research, which emphasizes cognitive and behavioral aspects of autism. In the clinical autism concept network above, the strongest themes are diagnosis, social skills, and behavior.

The distinction is further reinforced by how research is categorized. Clinical autism research falls under Field of Research (FoR) classifications of Psychology and Biomedical Sciences, while autistic-led research leans towards Health Sciences and Health Services. This highlights a fundamental difference in priorities.

It’s also worth considering the potential impact of age on these research approaches. Autistic-led research may naturally involve more adults, given the complexities of participating in research design. This could lead to a greater focus on issues relevant to autistic adults, an area often overlooked in traditional research.

How does impact look compared to all autism research?

Data sourced: 25 September 2024.

Though still in its early stages, autistic-contributor research shows promising signs of greater impact in both academic citations and public reach.

Citation, Field Citation Ratio (FCR), & Citation Rate: The average Field Citation Ratio (FCR) for autistic-contributor research is 5.30, compared to 2.31 for all autism research. The citation rate for autistic-contributor autism research (76.65%) is slightly higher than the overall citation rate for autism research (65.57%). Additionally, autistic-contributor research demonstrates a comparable average number of citations per publication (22.76) to the broader field of autism research (23.28). These figures indicate that autistic-contributor research is cited more frequently within the scientific community.

Altmetric Attention Score & Societal Impact: Autistic-contributor research in autism exhibits an average Altmetric Attention Score of 8.6, notably higher than the average of 4 for all autism research. This indicator shows that autistic-contributor autism research sparks more conversations outside of academia than broad autism research.

Translation into Policy, Practice & Innovation: Autistic-contributor research in autism has a higher rate of citation in policy documents (4.7%) compared to the broader field of autism research (2.0%). It also maintains a comparable rate of citation in clinical trials (0.7% vs. 1.2%). However, when it comes to citations in patents, autistic-contributor research lags behind with only 0.4% of publications cited compared to 2.2% in the broader field. These figures suggest that while involving autistic people in research may lead to findings that are more readily translatable into policies and clinical practices, there’s room for growth in terms of fostering innovation and generating patentable discoveries.

Autistic-contributor research in autism represents a small subset of the overall autism literature, but its higher FCR scores and Altmetric Attention Score, comparable citation averages, and stronger translation into policy collectively show the value and influence of research that actively involves autistic people.

Learning from other fields: Comparison to chronic illness and mental health research literature with lived experience contributions

Both chronic illness and mental health research fields have a strong track record of including people with lived experience as active contributors. We can gain valuable insights to enhance autistic representation in research by analyzing language used to acknowledge lived experience contributions in these fields. If we were to standardize language used to describe these collaborations, would it be easier to measure these types of collaborations? What terms would be best to use across fields?

“Patient” and “patient advocates” are some of the most highly used terms across both mental health and chronic illness participatory research, but may present challenges in the context of autism research where some participants do not want to pathologize autism. An emphasis on “lived experience” as an authorship and acknowledgement phrase is also common across all three fields, and may be a better approach to recognize contributions in autism research. Another structure sometimes used in the author affiliation fields is “with [condition]”, such as “researcher with chronic illness” or “advisor with bipolar disorder”. This structure is difficult to standardize across research areas and may make it harder to discover experts with relevant lived experience.

Additionally, there is an emphasis on group collaborators across all three fields. The prevalence of working groups and advisory panels demonstrates the effectiveness of these structures in facilitating meaningful participation and ensuring that diverse perspectives are heard.

Implications and recommendations

Despite the promising rise in participatory autism research, it still constitutes a small fraction of the overall autism literature. Much of the research remains rooted in clinical or mechanistic approaches and often overlooks the contributions of those with lived experience. To address this gap, funders, researchers, and institutions must prioritize participatory research approaches that actively incorporate autistic perspectives at every stage of the research process.

Recommendations:

• Funders and institutions: Prioritize funding and support for participatory research initiatives that actively involve autistic people in all stages of the research process.
• Researchers: Embrace collaborative approaches and methodologies, establish meaningful partnerships with autistic and neurodivergent communities, and ensure that research designs and methodologies are inclusive and accessible.
• Publishers: Consider metadata fields which standardize how participatory collaborations are described, in collaboration with the research community Consistent language can improve the discoverability of lived experience collaborators.
• Autistic individuals: Seek out opportunities to participate in research, share your expertise and insights, and advocate for greater representation and inclusion within the research community.

By actively involving autistic people in the research process, researchers in the field can improve the relevance of their work and address the real-world challenges and needs of the community. This evidence can inform policy decisions and advocacy efforts that lead to more equitable and supportive systems for autistic people and foster a deeper understanding of autism.

Special thanks to Holly Wolcott, Ph.D., Senior Vice President of Research Analytics at Digital Science, for her insightful feedback on this blog post.

The post Embracing lived experience: A data-driven look at autistic involvement in autism research appeared first on Digital Science.

However, our second Speaker Series Live lecturer of 2024 – mathematician, concert pianist, and author Dr Eugenia Cheng – is on a mission to change that perception of the subject she loves and showcase the joy, creativity and wonder of maths, and how it underpins our everyday lives, from the food we eat to the entertainment we consume. I caught up with Eugenia ahead of her talk at the Ri in June 2024 in the spectacular Faraday Lecture Theatre to talk about the creativity, wonder and relatability of maths, and how we can all engage with it in ways that bring us joy.

^{*or math, if you’re American and your letter S went to celebrate Labor Day along with your letter U – and, apparently, the skirt-portion of my dress. Always big-chair-test your summer sartorial choices, friends. Even my 100mm Crossfliketas couldn’t brace me in that massive chair so my dress stayed in place, and my only back-up outfit was supplied by the Time Variance Authority, so let’s all agree to just let it go and never mention it again, kthxbye}

Not just a mathematician

If you’ve come across Eugenia’s work, you like me will know that she is far from being “just a mathematician” – Eugenia uses her maths knowledge and her educational experience to teach maths at an art school in Chicago, as well as write books and deliver many public speaking engagements. She is also a musician, pianist, composer, and artist. She also somehow still still finds time to conduct research in category theory – the most abstract part of mathematics that focuses on finding patterns within maths and across concepts and situations. Brilliantly, a little like mathsception, “the thing that explains category theory is category theory” – or the “deepest point of explanation” as Eugenia puts it. Her explanation for her topic reminded me of xkcd 435 (and not 438 as I said in the interview, sorry xkcd fans, mea culpa), whereby her area of expertise really is the most fundamental of fundamental understanding.

Unearthing the foundations of knowledge

As humans Eugenia thinks that we understand things better if we understand them more deeply. This depth of knowledge enables us to make more connections, so that we can unite a broader range of things – much like in research where connections across subject areas strengthen the research we can do and the problems we can help overcome. In maths this requires a less linear way of thinking. Eugenia says it is all about creativity and also practice. However this is something we often attribute to being a natural characteristic. Eugenia reminds us that it is not just nature, as aspects of nurture definitely play a role too too, mostly through practicing new ways of thinking and doing. Practice really does make perfect, whether it is thinking in a different way for research, or whether it is learning transferrable skills in cooking that help you experiment with other things.

This is important when we think about problem solving. We spend a lot of time focusing on very practical solutions to solving problems, but sometimes the ability to think differently and more creatively allows us to make connections that can lead to better solutions. Maths enables people to think more philosophically and in a less application-driven way, which Eugenia describes as “illuminating”. Eugenia uses a lot of artistic vocabulary to describe maths which comes from the creativity required to think in such an abstract way. Creativity is about having ideas, and those ideas come from imagination. Maths is built on logic, but fresh ideas don’t come from that same space. Eugenia feels that maths education leaves this important part out, and I agree. Practicals in school science classes are more like demos than experiments. Eugenia would love to see a world in which we can reflect and reward more creativity and innovation in these subjects.

Communicating maths to the masses

Eugenia reflect on what a privilege it is to be able to engage with a range of audiences of all ages and interest levels. Although she has received criticism from many in the past, who have commented on what a “waste of expertise” it is for her to share her love of maths with young children, she believes that there is nothing more important to change perceptions. Discussing how challenging it must be to communicate across such a range of demographics, she says that analogy is the key to storytelling and allowing engagement with a range of complex concepts. She also reflects on the concept of practicing as a way of strengthening communication skills, and always listening, and adaptively responding to people’s reactions.

Eugenia is frustrated that the fear or dislike of maths is so widespread – though this is something that continues to motivate Eugenia. She feels that we need to be better at remembering what education is trying to achieve – and maths education in particular. If we are all working towards different goals it is hard to achieve any of them if we employ conflicting methods. Eugenia believes that teaching people how to think and how to learn is more transferable than learning how to carry out specific tasks that we always hear about when people ask why they need to learn how to do simultaneous equations, for example. She argues that maths doesn’t always have to be “useful” – it can be, and should also be, fun!

Eugenia makes a great comparison between learning and physical fitness, describing maths as the “cure strength” of learning. Maths is effective the abs and glutes of your mind. When your maths is strong through practice and training, you are in a stronger position to access other ways of thinking and making connections. A good level of confidence in maths shouldn’t be relegated to helping you calculating a grocery bill or solving an unrealistic maths problems that inexplicably always seems to involve large quantities of fruit.

Removing the red tape

Eugenia believes that one way to make maths more realistic could be to make it – and other subjects – less siloed. We talk about the unrealistic siloes of the sciences, reflecting on what a shame it is that physics couldn’t be more interesting at A Level** because it had to be entirely decoupled from maths A Level, but Eugenia believes that we should expand this way of thinking to include the arts and humanities, as well as financial understanding, marketing, and business. She is a great advocate for more project-based teaching to give people more holistic and realistic experiences of how the everyday world works. In undertaking such projects that mimic situations we encounter in every day life, learners can gain a more realistic appreciation of how everything in life involves a range of subjects and skills.

However, moving to such a different way of teaching and learning requires big change and global buy-in. How can we achieve this? Eugenia is realistic in that perhaps it is a big dream to have, but every Disney fan knows that dreams can come true. However, while wishing on a star may not get us very far, perhaps showcasing the value and impact in this new way of teaching and learning, as well as investing in changes by better funding education and make it less bureaucratic could lead to novel design in educational curricula. If anyone can advocate for change in this area, I feel that Eugenia is the person to do it.

**^{Hi, physics fans! We’d like to remind viewers and readers that these opinions are purely subjective to the chemist and the mathematician you see before you. We know that physics is just fine, but if you’d like to complain, please join the queue behind our CEO, who I’m sure will be first in line to defend this most noble of subjects…}

You can watch my interview with Eugenia on our YouTube channel, catch up on Eugenia’s Speaker Series talk on the Ri’s YouTube channel, and find all of Eugenia’s books in your favourite bookstore. You can also check out our Speaker Series playlist on YouTube which includes chats with some of our previous speakers, as well as our TL;DR Shorts playlist with short, snappy insights from a range of experts on the topics that matter to the research community.

With thanks to Eugenia for sharing her time with us, Huw James from Science Story Lab for filming and co-producing this interview, and the Royal Institution for hosting us in their beautiful Faraday Lecture Theatre ahead of Eugenia’s talk.

The post The reality of maths – meet Dr Eugenia Cheng appeared first on Digital Science.

It’s been a Cruel Summer of conference travel with a surprising number of work trips that have inadvertently taken place either just before or just after one Ms Taylor Swift visited the very same city. As Wembley Stadium gears up to once again welcome Tay-Tay and tens of thousands of Swifties (including Me!) to one of five shows before she says So Long, London and wraps the European leg of her Eras Tour (for now – fingers crossed for a safe and sparkly do-over, Vienna), I couldn’t help but wonder whether Taylor wasn’t secretly attending those very same conferences herself. It’s no secret that her career and its impact have inspired a lot of research – most recently, the rise of ‘Swiftonomics’ or the influence that Taylor Swift has had on the economy has been a hot topic of discussion. What if she has influenced more than we realise, and has been attending these conferences to increase the impact of the research she has inspired? This Is Me Trying to discover which other eras of research Taylor has influenced.

Welcome to the Research Eras Tour. Are you …ready for it?

Let’s start by searching for Taylor Swift in the Blank Space of the search bar in Dimensions and choosing Title and Abstract to reveal only the most relevant publications, patents, and other research outputs. Searching in full text gives over 5 thousand publications, but this would also include passing mentions of her, so I’m confining my search to mentions in the title and abstract only.

“It’s all just f*cking impossible”

Well, Dear Reader, I already know I’m going to love this little project, as the publication deemed to be “most relevant” has the Gorgeous title, ‘“It’s All Just F*cking Impossible:” The influence of Taylor Swift on fans’ body image, disordered eating, and rejection of diet culture’. The paper, which quotes Taylor Swift’s discussion about her own relationship with her body image in her Miss Americana documentary in its title, has an Altmetric score of 346 and counting, and the paper has been picked in 45 articles across 41 news outlets, as well as three blogs.

The article headings seem positive and suggest that Taylor Swift has indeed had a positive impact on how her fans perceive their own bodies in the face of society’s exhaustingly impossible and often unattainable expectations of how people should look, but it’s always best to read the source itself, so it’s Back to December – I mean, Dimensions – to learn more. The paper’s TL;DR summary as well as a quick read of the abstract both confirm that yes indeed, Taylor Swift and other celebrity role models can be positive influences on how people perceive themselves and the knock-on effect that can have on the related health issues people could be facing.

But back to the topic at hand. A quick glance at the top line of research outputs shows that, to date, 241 publications have “Taylor Swift” in the title or abstract, as well as 14 data sets, three grants, and one clinical trial. Not bad for someone whose debut album came out in 2006.

Long story short

So how has Taylor Swift impacted research? Let’s take a look, from 2006 until now. The graph below shows the total number of publications from 2006 to 2024. However no publications mentioned Taylor Swift at all until 2012, the year her Red album was released. There was a rise in interest in 2016, perhaps due to the lag of the impact generated after her much poppier 2014 album,1989, or in anticipation of 2017’s Reputation, arguably the best Taylor Swift album so far. I say arguably – I will argue that it is the best one because as eras go, that’s Mine.

Taking a look at the research themes and concepts, there seem to be five distinct clusters of language, lyrics, celebrity impact, and controversy, as well as one satellite group focusing on the works of Mark Twain, but what isn’t clear from this summary is how Everything Has Changed in terms of the volume of publications across different fields of research over time. To better understand Taylor Swift’s research eras, let’s take a look at the same information broken down by fields of research.

The graph below shows the five main fields of research of publications that mention Taylor Swift in either the title or abstract; Linguistics, Music, Communication and Media Studies, Creative Arts and Writing, and Language, Communication and Culture. As my teammate and friend Dr Hélène Draux pointed out, it is very nice to see other women artists featuring so prominently within these clusters. Although the overall trend is an increase in publication volume over time in almost all five fields, there are peaks and troughs that can be interrogated further. By isolating each field of research, we can discover more.

The linguistics era – 2019

Although publication volume increased after 2020, the Linguistics field of research could be said to have had an earlier peak in 2019. Looking at the rise in publications from 2016, aside from Language, Communications and Culture it was the only field of research that was increasing in its publication volume. Popular papers include one focused on a linguistic breakdown of the lyrics to the song Red, the contents of which have given me major flashbacks to GCSE English and my utter inadequacy in being able to reflect on the symbolism of any metaphor used in any piece of writing. Sorry, Mrs Sharpe. The scarf just seemed ‘scarfy’ to me…

The communications and media studies era – 2020

This field of research was partially responsible for the initial visibility of Taylor Swift-related research in the data, with its first publication back in 2012. Though there was an early peak in 2016, there were no publications related to this ‘era’ in 2018 or 2021 at all. However, between these two years, the number of publications peaked at five in 2020, cementing this year as The Communication and Media Studies Era. Trips right off your tongue, doesn’t it? Popular papers of this era focused on Taylor Swift’s forays into political alignment with the Democratic Party and her standing up for groups with less of a voice, perhaps catalysed in part by her 2019 album Lover featuring the hit song You Need To Calm Down and its perfect music video poking fun at the haters that continue to hate (hate, hate, hate, hate, hate), and of course the punchy one-line reminder that “shade never made anybody less gay”.

The music era – 2021

The discourse around Taylor Swift’s impact and influence on political and cultural advocacy continued into 2021, but this time in the slightly broader context of the role that music and musicians can play in nudging cultural behaviours. With another earlier but smaller peak in publications in this field of research 2016, and despite publications in this area continuing to increase over time, 2021 can be considered the era of music research, coming second only in volume to Creative Arts and Writing which has its own more dominant peak in research volume later down the line. Classic papers of the Music Era continue to focus on the Lover album with themes of allyship and inclusion but with hints of 2017’s Reputation creeping in with themes of re-evaluation and re-imagining.

The creative arts and writing era – 2022

What did you do during the first COVID-19 lockdown of 2020? If you were anything like me, you hooked up your old SNES to your ‘big TV’, learned the art of cocktail making – or drinking in my case, and diligently attended your daily Yoga With Adriene sessions. If you were Taylor Swift, you casually wrote, recorded and released two albums. The impact of Folklore and Evermore is evident in 2022, as the Creative Arts and Writing Era took hold. Some of the big hitters of this era include papers on storytelling through songwriting, and how her folkier, stripped-back albums packed with nostalgia perfectly reflected the societal vibe of the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The language, communication and culture era – 2023

Very much our current research era and the one that presently dominates is the language, communication and culture era. With an early peak in 2019, it is the field of research that now not only has the most publications within it over time, but the largest increase in publication rate since 2021. Hits from this era include a paper on the metaphoric meaning of the songs on the Reputation album (TL;DR – love who you love deeply and unashamedly – see, Mrs Sharpe, I got there in the end!), a similar deep dive into the lyrics of the Evermore album, Taylor Swift’s influence on inclusion and acceptance of all genders and sexualities, and a screaming celebration of Taylor Swift’s Woman of the Decade speech that also asks the question, now what?

The Swiftonomics of grant funding

The world of grant writing seems to have cottoned onto the impact of Swiftonomics and how an association with this public figure can garner attention. I was thrilled to see a mention of her in a Wellcome Trust grant for the amazing outreach and engagement initiative, “I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here”, which I took part in as a baby-researcher back when I was writing up my PhD thesis. Given its themes of breaking down barriers to inclusion and showcasing a range of human faces from the research community, I can’t think of a better-aligned name-drop. Well done, IAS Crew – I like your Style! Will this be the focus of a future research era or just the next generation of Swifties? Time will tell.

The prophecy of clinical trials

The single clinical trial mentioning Taylor Swift focuses on a project hoping to determine whether there is any link between connecting with her music, and mental health. As anyone capable of repeatedly suffering through heartwrenching 10-minute vault versions knows All Too Well, Swift’s lyrics are deeply descriptive in their emotional analysis of everyday situations for people of all ages, not Only The Young. Could Taylor Swift’s song lyrics, and those of other musicians, help people (in Singapore in the case of this clinical trial) expand their emotional vocabulary and become more in tune with their thoughts and feelings, and know when to seek support? To speculate the outcomes of the trial would be Treacherous but the impact of Taylor Swift on research seems to be far from over just yet.

Paper rings that come back around

Let’s end on data sets, and specifically, Lizzy Pope’s data set on Figshare which actually takes us right back to a place where we can Begin Again, as this data informed the first paper mentioned in this article. “It’s All Just F*cking Impossible”, I hear you cry. Yes, and that’s also the title of the paper. It’s always great to see the data openly shared in the pre-publication stage, as the entire journey of that research can be followed from inception to impact, linked together by an Invisible String of metadata.

Epiphany

Never in my Wildest Dreams did I think that I’d be doing a Dimensions data dive about Taylor Swift, but who could miss such a great opportunity to celebrate a successful woman artist who has had an undeniable influence on research and popular culture? Don’t Blame Me for the terrible shoehorning of Taylor Swift song titles in this article. And a shout out to my teammates who threw down the gauntlet to see whether we could make this a thing – Look What You Made Me Do?! Perhaps this is the start of a brand-new series. Let us know your thoughts on this, and Speak Now if you’d like us to give your favourite thing the data nerdery treatment. With thanks to Taylor Swift for inspiring this article.

The post The Research Eras Tour – the scholarly side of Taylor Swift appeared first on Digital Science.

What are universities for? With pressures on funding, academic freedoms under scrutiny and volatile global demographic changes, the need to prove new knowledge can have tangible outputs has never been greater. Simon Linacre looks at one university in the UK which is leading the way in research transformation.

When Digital Science launched its Research Transformation campaign in early April, one of the key aspects the team behind the initiative wanted to explore was not just the ‘what’ of how research enabled change, but the nature of the connection itself between the two sides. For many of us involved in academic research or in industry, we only see one side of this transformation, but don’t stop to think about what has enabled it in the first place. 

A key element of research transformation is the ability to understand research from different perspectives, and this is often described in policy documents and commentaries in general terms without spelling out the practicalities of what is going on. And yet to fully understand how to make the shift from working within research institutions to achieving worthwhile impact in industry, it’s the practicalities that in the end really matter. 

Knowledge transfer partnerships

To help us better understand both the nature of the connection between research and industry and the practicalities involved, what better way than to talk to one of the UK’s leading exponents of knowledge transfer partnerships – or KTPs – in the shape of Leeds Beckett University. LBU has one of the largest student populations in the UK at around 28,000, and ever since it started life back in the early 19th century as Leeds Mechanics Institute, it has had strong links with industry. In the UK, there has been a tradition of KTPs which celebrate their 50th anniversary in 2025. They are partly funded by the government and aim to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and technical skills from universities into industry, as well as improve the skills and business awareness of new graduates.

LBU has been particularly active in this area, with a number of successful partnerships set up with local businesses. Interestingly, these partnerships are not a straightforward transfer of knowledge or expertise from one party to another just for commercial gain, but acknowledge a need on the part of the business for a shift or change in their development, aligned to the business’ wider strategic objectives. We spoke to Jo Griffiths, Head of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships at LBU, to learn more about the connection with businesses and what this shift looks like.

I am hugely heartened by the sense that businesses see themselves as part of a wider ecosystem and force for good.

Jo Griffiths

Head of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, Leeds Beckett University

“I’ve noticed an increase in the number of organizations we’re working with that describe doing something positive and different for the wider community as a key part of their strategic aims. Whether that’s addressing a big global challenge like sustainability – or making changes at a local level to support the growth of the wider business community – I am hugely heartened by the sense that businesses see themselves as part of a wider ecosystem and force for good,” says Ms Griffiths. 

“One recent example is that of NuGreen and sister company QMedical. They are small SMEs based on the border of Yorkshire and Lancashire in the UK. Their aspiration is to turn healthcare waste (all that bagged waste you see in hospitals and clinics) into substitute aggregates, principally sand, for use in the construction sector. Working in partnership with material scientists and engineers from the university via the KTP funding, they’re testing and bringing to market new products by converting the waste into something useful.

“There are many other discussions and projects like this being developed – we’re working on projects with third sector, not-for-profit and charities too. And yes, there is a positive commercial impact to the organization from the proposed partnerships (they wouldn’t get the funding without that) but absolutely key to all of them is how they support others – whether at an individual level, at a community level or as part of a wider shift in societal attitudes and insight.”

Benefits

The advantages of such relationships are clear, and are neatly summarized in the graphic below, where there is a symbiotic relationship between a qualified graduate (known as an ‘associate’) who leads the change, the university which creates the teaching or research, and the organization which sees improved performance as a result of the arrangement. Add in to that environmental benefits as seen in the example shared by Jo Griffiths above, it’s clear why such programs have been embraced by so many organizations and universities in the UK.

But is there also a deeper transformation at play, where the implementation itself can inform further research down the line? One high profile academic at LBU has been involved in a number of KTPs, some of which have yielded significant results for the research he conducts. Dr Jim Morgan is Principal Lecturer at LBU, specializing in Human Factors and Occupational (Health) Psychology, and he has been involved in a number of successful KTPs while working at LBU.

For example, he was involved in a project between major infrastructure services and engineering firm Amey, which partnered with LBU on the Target Zero SafetySmart Project. This came about as Amey was facing a challenge regarding one of its employee commitments, which was to create zero harm for them in what were often safety-critical environments. The senior management team at Amey worked with LBU’s Psychology Applied to Safety and Health (PASH) research group on the KTP, filling the recognized need for formal psychological and behavioral knowledge and skills among Amey colleagues to implement and embed behavioral safety strategies and solutions.

The result after a three-year project with Amey’s Consulting and Rail division and LBU was an agreed approach that included both quantitative and qualitative psychological research methods that created a flexible, long-term framework. This, alongside a more detailed understanding of accident risk saw a decrease in incidents, and also led to some cost reductions linked to accidents and incidents.

Case study

LBU has had not one but two successful KTP case studies working with the well-established rail infrastructure companies, Amey and VolkerRail. The following details are drawn from LBU’s REF Impact Case Study in 2021.

Background: Human safety is understandably critical to the railway maintenance industry. The UK Network Rail workforce safety statistics for the five years up to 2013/2014 show that major injuries rose by a quarter, and lost time to injuries more than doubled in that time. In addition to personal suffering, the financial cost of workplace injuries was estimated to be nearly £5bn at this time.

At LBU, the Psychology Applied to Safety and Health (PASH) research group – led by Dr Jim Morgan and Dr Matteo Curcuruto – are involved in a research program focused on “helping safety-critical organizations to translate Organizational Psychology, Human Factors, and Health Psychology research knowledge into enhanced behavioral safety management practices”. This research has been funded by, among other sources, two Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs) in collaboration with industry partners, namely Amey and VolkerRail.

Research: The research employed in the programs used a ‘bottom-up approach’ to directly involve workers from the start. This approach aimed to generate improved communication, trust and a better culture of safety, with research conducted with workers at the two rail companies, as well as other workers from similar industries.

Impact: The result of the SafetySmart project (with Amey) has been clear, with rail operations reduced by a third in lost time injuries and a quarter in non-lost time injuries. Overall, the company estimates as a result of SafetySmart turnover will increase by over £1.3m in the three years after the project finished.

The programs have also achieved industry recognition, with the Amey KTP awarded the highest rating of “Outstanding” by Innovate UK assessors based on impact for the firm, and second highest rating of “Very Good” for the VolkerRail YourAIM project. 

Additionally, VolkerRail estimates that as a result of the YourAIM project turnover increased by a quarter of a million pounds, with a further £1m in the three years following the project being completed.

Summary: Research by PASH has undoubtedly developed the safety culture at both Amey and VolkerRail, with demonstrable improvements in hours worked and turnover. Moreover, both companies have now implemented robust behavioral safety protocols to keep an eye on safety-critical workflows, further improving safety. The KTP program therefore not only improves human working conditions and business outcomes, but is also part of a symbiotic relationship with research, providing rich data for further research at universities like LBU.

See Jim and Matteo’s KTP-funded research articles in Dimensions.

Future REFerence

The ability for universities to show impactful work outside labs and field studies is particularly important in the UK due to its system of research funding, known as the Research Excellence Framework or REF. Billions of pounds of research funding from the government is determined by how universities and their departments perform in their research programs, and KTPs are a key plank in an institution’s strategy to show how their research can have a positive impact on lives and social wellbeing. In Dr Morgan’s words, KTPs are “simply brilliant for the REF”, as they show the impact research programs at universities can have, as well as helping with the recruitment and work experience of postgraduate students, many of whom find employment with KTP partners when their studies have been completed.

There’s no one-size-fits-all when it comes to the REF, and different institutions take a different approach to gathering and collating information for submission.

REF Framework

As experts in the research assessment ecosystem, Symplectic collaborates closely with the academic community to navigate the changing requirements of the REF.

Learn more about how we’re supporting REF 2029

So, there are numerous reasons why a university such as LBU should pursue KTPs, and rightly be proud of what they have achieved with the numerous projects they have supported and delivered. What is interesting from a research perspective is the importance of the role people play in the projects, both in terms of the interactions between the university and external organizations, as well as the outcomes and how they positively impact individuals’ lives. In addition, it is also clear that the individual researchers themselves gain a huge amount of wider knowledge from their work over and above the project focus. All in all, given the right structure and opportunities to make a difference through research, researchers can do just that.

The post What a difference making a difference makes appeared first on Digital Science.

Ernest works at Sunbird AI which is using AI-enabled technology to achieve positive social impact across Africa by helping social initiatives, public institutions and policymakers develop new systems and technologies for a range of applications. In this TL;DR Shorts episode, Ernest talks about the Makerere AI and Data Science Research Lab.

Ernest reflects on his involvement in creating the Makerere AI Lab, and how its existence sparked a community of research in Uganda that has grown and created a career path in technology for societal good for many researchers, while also providing a platform to showcase the impact that data science and computational research can have on solving the challenges facing communities in Africa.

Subscribe now to be notified of each weekly release of the latest TL;DR Short, and catch up with the entire series here. 

If you’d like to suggest future contributors for our series or suggest some topics you’d like us to cover, drop Suze a message on one of our social media channels and use the hashtag #TLDRShorts.

The post TL;DR Shorts: Dr Ernest Mwebaze on the impact of community initiatives appeared first on Digital Science.