Research transformation: Change in the era of AI, open, and impact: Voices from the academic community

It’s clear academia is at a pivotal juncture

External pressures from an increasingly complex world are forcing rapid change in the sector.

As a society, we need answers to pressing issues and there is a growing expectation for research to deliver. But increasing demands, tightening budgets, and lack of infrastructure can stand in the way of progress. Many are turning to emerging technologies for support.

View key takeaways for librarians

View key takeaways for research offices

In order to build tools that really speak to users’ needs, as well as talking often, it is important to understand where the space has come from and where it is moving too. We were delighted to hear how aligned our focusses were. I’m particularly excited to see where we can improve on all fronts with the inevitability and all of the benefits of open research.

Mark Hahnel

VP Open Research | Digital Science

Key findings

Several themes that emerged from our research are summarized here. For all the detail, make sure you download the full report.

Our report speaks loudly of the technological advancements, new research practices and global problems driving change in academia. These transformations have created both opportunities and obstacles for institutions and the sector at large.

Simon Porter

VP Research Futures | Digital Science

Driving progress for all

Our report speaks loudly of the technological advancements, new research practices and global problems driving change in academia. These transformations have created both opportunities and obstacles for institutions and the sector at large.

At Digital Science, our goal is to advance global research by solving the community’s biggest challenges through innovative artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Our job is to make life easier for everyone in the research world—researchers, universities, funders, industry, and publishers—so that research can become open, fairer, faster, freer and more connected to drive progress for all. 

The post Research transformation report appeared first on Digital Science.

Monday 28 October 2024

Digital Science, a technology company serving stakeholders across the research ecosystem, is today calling for greater awareness of the impact that a myriad of fast-developing technologies are having on academics and their institutions.

This follows the publication of a new report from Digital Science looking at how changing attitudes and behaviors towards research are affecting traditional research models and dynamics. Key themes to emerge from the findings relate to areas of open research, impact and evaluation, tech and AI, collaboration and research security.

The objective of the report – titled Research Transformation: Change in the era of AI, open and impact – was to learn more about how the research world is experiencing transformation, what’s influencing change and how roles within it are being impacted. Digital Science conducted a survey, reaching out to the research community through questionnaires and in-depth interviews. 

Findings from the report may make sobering reading for those involved in academia, as the lightning pace of technological change appears at odds with the traditionally slow-moving nature of the research ecosystem. In total there are five key takeaways:

1. Open research is transforming research, but barriers remain
2. Research metrics are evolving to emphasize holistic impact and inclusivity
3. AI’s transformative potential is huge, but bureaucracy and skill gaps threaten progress
4. Collaboration is booming, amid increasing concerns over funding and security
5. Security and risk management need a strategic and cultural overhaul

Digital Science’s new Executive Vice President of Academic, Jonathan Breeze, says: “The Research Transformation: Change in the era of AI, open and impact report gives a voice to the opinions of the academic community and their feelings about changes in the research ecosystem. Importantly, the report gives the whole sector a deeper understanding of the fast-changing needs of academia.

“The report explores how academic roles are evolving, the external drivers of change, and future predictions. It also looks at how Digital Science can support the sector’s changing needs through AI-powered tools and innovations, which is something we’re paying very close attention to across our organization.”

Commenting on the findings, Digital Science’s Mark Hahnel, VP Open Research, and Simon Porter, VP of Research Futures, say: “Our report speaks loudly of the technological advancements, new research practices and global problems driving change in academia. These transformations have created both opportunities and obstacles for institutions and the sector at large. 

“Reflecting on the findings, we believe academic institutions can position themselves to deliver meaningful research in the era of three key developments – AI, open research and research impact.”

The report’s findings are based on survey analysis, plus insights from in-depth interviews. The survey was an online questionnaire of open and closed questions that ran during 29 May-12 July 2024 with a total of 380 respondents from 70 countries. Typically, respondents held roles within the academic library, research office, faculty and leadership teams. Further in-depth interviews were held with 15 participants from the academic community over the summer of 2024. 

Following the publication of the report, there are also several other activities including a webinar hosted in partnership with Times Higher Education. This webinar will feature a panel discussion on the evolving role of research in academia and the transformative impact of AI and other emerging technologies in making research more open, inclusive, and collaborative.

See the full report here: digital-science.com/academic-research-transformation

For more details on Digital Science and its solutions for academic institutions, visit our website: digital-science.com/academic 

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 www.digital-science.com and follow @digitalsci on X or on LinkedIn.

Media contacts

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

The post New report demands greater understanding of the impact of change on academia appeared first on Digital Science.

Within the report, we sought to understand from our academic research community how research transformation is experienced across different roles and responsibilities. The report, which is a mixture of surveys and interviews across libraries, research offices, leadership and faculty, reflects transformations in the way we collaborate, assess, communicate, and conduct research.

The positions that we hold towards these areas are not the same as those we held a decade or even five years ago. Each of these perspectives represent shifts in the way that we perceive ourselves and the roles that we play in the community. Although there is concern about the impact that AI will have on our community, our ability to adapt and change is reflected strongly across all areas of research, including open access, metrics collaboration and research security. That such a diverse community is able to continually adapt to change reflects well on our ability to respond to future challenges.

Key findings from the report:

• Open research is transforming research, but barriers remain.
• Research metrics are evolving to emphasize holistic impact and inclusivity.
• AI’s transformative potential is huge, but bureaucracy and skill gaps threaten progress.
• Collaboration is booming, but increasing concerns over funding and security.
• Security and risk management need a strategic and cultural overhaul.

We do these kinds of surveys to understand where the research community is moving and how we can tweak and adapt our approach as a company. We were very grateful to the great minds who helped us out with a deep dive into what has affected their roles and will affect their roles going forward. Metrics, Open Research and AI are very aligned with the tools that we provide for academics, and the strategy we have to make research more inclusive, transparent and trustworthy.

Get the report

The post Research transformation: Change in the era of AI, open and impact appeared first on Digital Science.

Academia is at a pivotal juncture. It has often been criticized as slow to change, but external pressures from an increasingly complex world are forcing rapid change in the sector. To understand more about how the research world is transforming, what’s influencing change, and how roles are impacted, we reached out to the research community through a global survey and in-depth interviews.

Research Transformation stories so far…

Digital Science Open Principles

Read now

Open Access: Mo Money Mo Problems

Read now

The Initial
Transformation

Read now

Academic Survey Report Pre-registration

Sign up

The State of Open Data 2024: Special Report

Read now

Will 2025 be a turning point for Open Access?

Read now

How has innovation shaped Open Research? What does the future hold – especially with the impact of AI? Here’s Dan Valen speaking about Figshare’s key role, with innovation helping to transform the research landscape.

Digital Science has always understood its role as a community partner – working towards open research together. Here’s some ways in which we have helped to transform research over the last 14 years.

In our first piece, Simon Porter and Mark Hahnel introduce the topic and detail the three areas the campaign will focus on.

• Making data more usable
• Opening up channels & the flow of information
• Transforming data through innovation & AI
• Maintaining trust & integrity
• Research Transformation

Research transformation

The way we interact with information can amplify our ability to make connections, and in doing so transforms how we understand the world. Supercharged by the AI moment that we are in, the steady march of digital transformation in society over the last three decades is primed for rapid evolution. What is true for society, is also doubly so for research. Alongside ground-breaking research and discoveries is the constant invitation to adapt to new knowledge and abilities. Combine the general imperative within the research sector to innovate with the rapidly evolving capabilities of generative AI and it is safe to say that expectations are high. Taking effective advantage of new possibilities as they arise however, requires successful coordination within society and systems. 

There is an art to transformation, and understanding the mechanisms of transformation places us in the best position to take advantage of the opportunities ahead.

In this series, we specifically seek to explore Research Transformation with an eye to adapting what we already know to the present AI moment. Transformation in Research is not just about digital systems, but it is also about people and organisations – crossing boundaries from research to industry, emerging new research sectors, creating new narratives and adapting to the possibilities that change brings.

At Digital Science, we have always sought to be an integral part of research transformation, aiming to provide products that enable the research sector to evolve research practice – from collaboration and discovery through to analytics and administration. Our ability to serve clients from research institutions to funders, publishers, and industry has placed us in a unique position to facilitate change across the sector, not simply within silos, but between them. In this series, we will be drawing on our own experiences of research transformation, as well as inviting perspectives from the broader community. As we proceed we hope to show that Research Transformation isn’t just about careful planning, but requires a sense of playfulness – a willingness to explore new technology, a commitment to a broader vision for better research, as well as an ability to build new bridges between communities.

1. The story of research data transformation

In the first of three themes, we will cover Research Transformation from the perspective of the data and metadata of research. How do changes to the metadata of research transform our ability to make impact, as well as see the research community through new lenses? How does technology enable these changes to occur? Starting almost from the beginning, we will look at how transitions in publishing practice have enabled the diversity of the research workforce to become visible. We will also trace the evolving story of the structure of a researcher’s papers, from the critical use of identifiers, to adoption of the credit ontology, through to the use of trust markers (including ethics statements and data and code availability, and conflict of interest statements.) The evolving consensus on structured and semi structured nature of research articles changes not only the way we discover, read and trust individual research papers, but also transforms our ability to measure and manage research itself.

Our focus will not only be reflective, but will also look forward to the emerging challenges and opportunities that generative AI offers. We will ask deep questions about how research should make its way into large language models. We also explore the new field of Forensic Scientometrics that has arisen in response to the dramatic increase in bad faith science in part enabled by generative AI, and the new research administration collaborations that this implies – both with research institutions and across publishing. We will aso offer more playful, experimental investigations.  For example, a series on ‘prompt engineering for librarians’ draws on the original pioneering spirit of the 1970’s MEDLARS Analysts to explore the possibilities that tools such as OpenAI can offer. 

2. The story of connection

Lifting up from the data, we note that a critical part of our experience of research transformation has been the ability to experience and connect with research fromshifting perspectives. In this second theme exploring research transformation, we aim to celebrate the art of making connections, from the personal transformations required  to make the shift from working within research institutions to industry, through to the art of building research platforms that support multiple sectors. We also cover familiar topics from new angles, For instance, how do the FAIR data principles benefit the pharmaceutical industry? How do we build effective research collaborations with emerging research sectors in Africa?

3. The story of research innovation

In our third theme, we will explore Research Transformation from the perspective of innovation, and how it has influenced the way research is conducted. Culminating in a  Research Transformation White Paper we will explore how roles have changed in academia, publishing, and industry.  Within this broader context of Research transformation, we ask ‘How are we using AI in our research workflows?’ How do we think we will be using AI in years to come?

Of course, many of us in the Digital Science community have been engaging with different aspects of research transformation over many years. If you are keen to explore our thinking to date, one place that you might like to start is at our Research Transformation collection on Figshare. Here we have collated what we think are some of our most impactful contributions to Research Transformation so far. We are very much looking forward to reflecting on research transformation throughout the year. If you are interested in contributing, or just generally finding out more, why not get in touch?

The post Welcome to… Research Transformation!  appeared first on Digital Science.

When considering research transformation within the research ecosystem, it is hard to think of a greater change than the rise of persistent identifiers (DOIs and ORCiDs being two prominent examples.) Arising out of the original digital transformation of research in the internet age, persistent identifiers emerged out of the need to refer to the same digital object over time, even though every single piece of infrastructure used to support it might change.  

From a narrow perspective persistent identifiers (PIDs) might be understood as a response to a technical problem, however the key innovation surrounding persistent identifiers has been an ever- expanding social infrastructure – a constant invitation to collaborate, with roots that stretch much further back than the internet. 

It begins in 1973…

Although you might think of persistent identifiers as something particularly linked to the digital age, I think a useful starting point is to consider the creation of perhaps the first citation identifier in 1973. Within a National Library of Medicine (NLM) document from 1972 is the following note:

“With the generation of the 1973 MEDLINE database, citations will carry a unique identification number which consists of: 

1. The International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) 
2. Volume number of the journal 
3. Beginning page of the article 
4. A two digit number for the year…

…This identifier will ultimately serve as a bridge between various machine readable data bases to allow for the interchange of bibliographic data between various of the abstracting and indexing services. In addition, it is also intended to serve ultimately as a link between the Library’s retrieval and document delivery services. Although these two uses may not be fully implemented for some time, we have begun to carry the identifier in the database as a first step toward this end. We believe this use to be the first major operational use of the recently implemented International Standard Serial Number.”

Within this short statement are some of the key ideas behind the persistent identifiers that we use today. Not only does the identifier point to something, it is an open bridge between different knowledge sets – an invitation to connect. Reading further, we see that this identifier is built upon the fruits of a significant international collaboration between publishers and libraries. The newly created ISSN – established to identify journals as they transform through time – provides a language to identify the same research articles across different databases and representations. By becoming the first major adopter of the recently implemented ISSN, the NLM also exhibits another common feature of the persistent identifier story – the capacity to invest and place trust in the future success of community-developed infrastructure.

While the implementation of the first citation identifier was short-lived (it seems to be deleted from MEDLINE files by 1979), the service in which it was embodied was certainly not. The MEDLINE index, now most prominently accessed through PubMed, and syndicated through almost every other comprehensive research search index, is today an essential part of any medical researcher’s toolkit, and the use of PubMed IDs to refer to publications is commonplace.

2002: From catalogue to community….

With the arrival of the internet in 1995 and the move towards digital rather than physical, the need for a persistent identifier had resurfaced, this time to solve the problem of being able to persistently locate the digital representation of an article, as websites, digital infrastructure and even publisher ownership changed around them. 

Unlike the citation identifier proposed in 1973, the implementation of Digital Object Identifiers in 2002 would do more than just bridge representations together. Instead, facilitated by Crossref, and scaffolded by emerging common understanding of how to digitally describe a research article (JATS-XML), DOIs for research articles would encapsulate a representation of the object that they describe, along with a persistable link to where you could find it. More than just a technology, facilitated by CrossRef, DOIs effectively shift responsibility for journal article metadata from citation indexes back to publishers. This responsibility extends to not just assigning DOIs to their research articles, but also to using DOIs to reference other articles. To put it another way, DOIs are made real through shared meaning and practice within the publishing community.

Although initiated within and between publishers, DOIs provided other invitations to collaborate within the broader research community. Current Research Information Systems (such as Symplectic Elements) could enable institutions to choose which representation of a publication they wanted to include in their system. Common identifiers provided institutions with a choice over the publication data providers that they consume. Institutions are able to create their own representation of publications - enhanced with links to university staff and local research classifications, and yet linked by a DOI, able to connect this representation to a broader ecosystem of metrics offered by an expanding set of service providers.

Over the next two decades, outside of publications, the use of DOIs in Wikipedia, policy documents, Twitter/X, Facebook etc., creates new invitations and possibilities for services that track alternative metrics (such as Altmetric)

2009: From publications to datasets…

From the perspective of 2024 the idea that you should also be able to cite datasets as well as publications seems natural, however this is the result of concerted efforts to transform research practice over the last 20 years. Finding a growing network of support in 2009, the initiative is not led by publishers this time, but instead by the library community. Although data repositories had already existed within institutions with local identifiers, the idea of of a DOI for datasets brings with it an associated set of expectations - datasets should be able to accumulate metrics, we should be able to assess their impact on research, and as with publications researchers should receive credit for their production.

As with DOIs for publications before them, DataCite DOIs - established by the library community - create an open invitation for the broader community to innovate. The ability and expectation to create citable DOIs for datasets creates a global need for data repository infrastructure, and the rationale for global generalist repositories like Figshare, Zenodo, the Open Science Framework (OSF), Dryad and others.  

2010: From objects to people

While the conversations to create identifiers for DOIs for publications and datasets emerged from localised homes within the research community (publishers, libraries), discussions on establishing a common persistent identifier for researchers reached out to all parts of the research community at once. In many ways ORCiD sought to establish a common research information citizenship right from the beginning, bringing together research institutions, funders, publishers, researchers(!), and service providers. ORCiDs had the potential to save researchers time and effort, but only if all parts of the research community moved together. As ORCiDs were owned by researchers the success of this initiative depended on (and continues to depend on)  the constant engagement with and utility to researchers themselves.

Publishers and funders played significant roles in providing early compliance reasons for ORCiD adoption. Perhaps unsurprisingly for an identifier about people, different communities of researchers adopted ORCiDs at different rates. Adoption rates were different by different fields of research, but also by country. Regional strategies had a significant impact on the rate of ORCiD adoption, and these efforts continue today in the form of National PiD Strategies.

For services providers ORCiD provided not much as an invitation to collaborate but an imperative. Current Research Information Systems that could integrate with ORCiD could not only save researchers time by downloading relationships to publications that they had already associated with themselves elsewhere, but also help curate and add value to a researcher’s record.

The idea of an ORCiD is that it would go anywhere a researcher could authenticate. For a generalist repository like Figshare, it means that ORCiDs linked to a user’s account (along with those of their collaborators) form part of the metadata associated with the published object. The ability to associate an ORCiD with a service account provided other benefits - such as access to Overleaf accounts - as a user moved between one institution to the next. 

2019: From people to institutions

In 2019 the research organisation registry was created to provide identifiers to institutions involved in research, evolving from a well-established need to unambiguously describe and compare the research profiles of institutions. Without an open and, critically, universally adopted set of identifiers for institutions, questions of institutional assessment are limited to the boundaries of individual scientometrics data sets (such as Dimensions, Web of Science.)  (For more on the creation of ROR see “Are you ready to ROR?” (Scholarly Kitchen, 2019).

Unlike other persistent identifiers mentioned so far, the relationship between a ROR and an institution is slightly more distant. The Research Organization Registry is seeded from the independently created Global Research Identifier Database created by Digital Science in order to describe all of the research institutions involved in research within the Dimensions database. A ROR is not part of an institution itself, a ROR ID is created in response to an institution participating in research. 

A central use case for ROR IDs is address disambiguation. When applied retrospectively to the research corpus via algorithms they provide a common lens through which to understand institutional contributions to research. In this sense, ROR IDs share many common attributes with externally defined research classification schemes (such as SDGs or Fields of Research). The use of algorithms to connect addresses to institutions, although powerful, introduces a new discipline to persistent identifiers, namely how to deal with assertions that are likely to be true (but not always.)

Although still new, one research transformation that ROR IDs invite is the possibility of datasource independent institutional ranking systems. If we can agree on the external identifiers used to describe research, then we can swap one provider out with another and compare results.

2024: What is next? From finished objects to workflows

Finally, what research transformations await from the newest persistent identifier to reach implementation? 

One of the most promising developments is the emergence of  Research Activity (RAiD) identifiers and their ability to represent research activities as they evolve, recording both the participants of a project, and the outputs that they are associated with. RAiDs offer the promise of providing structure for new research outputs that an activity creates, and then finally to contributing to the discovery and provenance infrastructure necessary to build trust in research. 

Reaching deep into the workflows of research, RAiDs provide a forward connection between research infrastructure of research right through to publication, as well as the promise of a backward connection back to CRIS systems and funders. Continuing a change in perspective that began with ORCiD, RAiDs challenge the entire research sector to view research metadata as an active system rather than a series of static representations. 

The success of RAiDs, more than the identifiers that have come before them, will rely on the imaginations of service providers to incorporate them into their workflows, and connect through to other services. The relationship between service providers and persistent identifiers has moved from invitation, to imperative, to potential catalyst. 

To demonstrate the potential of RAiDs I gave a PIDFest lightning talk/demonstration that showed the promise of RAiD workflows by using the Figshare project as a proxy for a RAiD activity definition. It demonstrated how RAiD can facilitate the flow of metadata from creation through to publication - automatically creating publication authorship details from associated ORCiDs, and providing incentives for researchers to improve their ORCiD records in the process. You can see the demonstration here.

By the end of the first day of the conference, I was delighted to be given access to the actual sandbox RAiD service. I then spent the rest of the conference in a personal hackathon of one to create an actual RAiD workflow demonstration - using a RAiD to control the users on a figshare project, and pushing author, and author contribution statements (based on project roles) into an overleaf document. You can see the resulting overleaf project here.  

Of course, this is only part of the story. The agenda for PIDFest was packed with discussions on the need for persistent identifiers for instruments, samples, prizes and awards, organisms, cultural heritage objects, and more. Encouragingly, for a community that has always been about expanding the boundaries of collaboration, discussions about equity and access to persistent identifier infrastructure, and who was in the room (or online) for discussion also played a prominent role in the conference.

May the transformation continue. I am excited to see what new opportunities arise.

The post Exploring research transformation through the lens of persistent identifiers appeared first on Digital Science.

In this ongoing investigation into Research Transformation, we seek to celebrate the art of change. How does change happen in research? What influences our behaviour? How do all of the different systems in research influence each other?

We begin our reflection on transformation with perhaps one of the most unremarked on, yet most pervasive changes in research – the switch between initials and full first names in the author records. As we will see, the shift from the formal to the familiar has been in flux from the start of scholarly publishing, however – particularly in the last 80 years – we can trace the influence of countries, fields of research, publishers and journal submission technology, funders and scholarly knowledge graphs on author name behaviours. In more recent history, we can observe that the shift towards full names has also been gendered, particularly in medicine, with men shifting towards full names earlier than women.

Why does it matter? The increase in transparency afforded by first author names is not simply a curiosity. First names, in the ethnicities and genders that they suggest, provide an (albeit imperfect) high level reflection of the diversity of experiences that are brought to research. It is just as important to see ourselves reflected in the outputs of the research careers that we choose to pursue, as the voices that represent us on panels at conferences. Framed this way, the progress towards the use of first names is part of the story of inclusion in research. The ‘Initial Transformation’ is also an initial problem.

Fortunately, the use of initials as part of author names has been in steady, if gradual, decline. The full details of the “The Rise and Fall of the Initial Era” can be found in our recent paper on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06500.

Below are six observations from the paper:

The transformation from initials to full first names is part of the the broader transformation of the journal article as technology

The form of a research article itself a the technology used to encode the global norms of science. As a key building block of shared knowledge, the evolution of the form of a research article must be at once slow enough to allow the discoveries of the past to be understood today, and flexible enough to codify new patterns of behavior (such as researcher identifiers ORCiD, funding statements, conflicts of interest, authors contribution statements and other trust markers).

Over time, not only has the structure of the content of a research article evolved, the way that authors are represented has also changed. From 1945 through to 1980, we identify a period of name formalism (referring to authors by first initial and surname). This is the only period in the history of publishing where initials are used in preference to full first names. We call this period the ‘Initial Era’.

In the ‘Initial Era’, we suggest that accommodating a growing number of authors per paper on a constrained physical page size encouraged the formalism towards initials. From 1980, full names begin to be used more commonly than initials marking the beginning of the ‘Modern Era’. Within the ‘Modern Era’, name formalism continues a gradual decline through to the 1990s. In the period between 1990 through to 2003 – a period of significant digital transformation in which the research article was recast as a digital object, name formalism drops steeply. After 2003, the decline in name formalism is less steep, but steadily trends toward zero.

The story of the initial transformation is one of different research cultures becoming homogenised

The US is the first country to shift towards the familiar, followed reasonably quickly by other western countries, with France perhaps holding out the longest. Slavic Countries are more formal for longer but also increasingly shift towards familiar names. At the bottom of the graph (see below) in green, are three countries in the Asia-Pacific region – Japan, South Korea and China. For these countries there is no concept of a first initial, and where names have been anglicised, full names were preferred.

The story of initial transformation highlights a discipline separation in research culture

How we name ourselves on papers has nothing to do with the type of research that we conduct, yet there are very clear differences in the rate of shift from name formalism between disciplines. Research does not change at a single pace, local cultures can impact change regardless of their relationship to the change itself.

Technology influenced our name formalism

The choice to use first names or initials has not always been a choice that resides with researchers themselves. Below we present an analysis of three journals that all went live with online journal systems in 1995-96. From the mid 70s through to 1995, journals still mostly employed typesetting houses that set the style of the journal. Even before the onset of online submission systems, journal styles influenced the way that first initials were represented. From the mid 70s these three journals take different approaches. Tetrahedron shifts from a majority initials approach, whereas The BMJ and the Journal of Biological Chemistry switch to typesetting that preferences initials. With the emergence of the internet in 1995, research articles began to be recast as discoverable landing pages, and here the Journal of Biological Chemistry switches all at once to a system that enforces full names, and The BMJ – a system that allows choice. In all cases where author choice is allowed, the trend away from formal names continues.

Changes in infrastructure can affect how we understand the past as well as the present

Between 2003 and 2010, DOI infrastructure run by CrossRef was adopted by the majority of publishers. As part of the CrossRef metadata schema, a separate field for given names was assumed. Critically, during this transition most journals chose to implement their back catalogue, including full names where possible. We owe our ability to view full name data in the past to infrastructure changes in the first decade of the 2000s.

How were publishers able to communicate first names to the crossref DOI standard? At a layer below DOIs was another language to describe the digital structure of papers. The Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS XML), now a common standard used to describe the digital form of a journal article – aiding both the presentation, and preservation of digital content - was first released in 2003, and reflected over a decade of prior work in the industry to reexpress the journal article as a digital object. Within this standard full names were also codified, and the requirement of a publisher to preserve all digital content meant that there was an imperative to apply this standard (or at least compatible earlier versions) to their complete catalogues.

Although the communication of first names seems to have occurred reasonably seamlessly to DOI metadata, the transition of first names to the scholarly knowledge graphs of the time was slower.

MedLine (and by relation pubmed) only began adding full names to its metadata records in 2002. Journals that relied on MedLine records for discovery (and chose not to implement DOIs)  did not benefit from retrospective updates.

The difference in the adoption of first names between crossref and MedLine/PubMed also highlights a risk in adopting scholarly knowledge graphs as infrastructure. Scholarly Knowledge graphs have their own constraints on infrastructure, and make decisions on what is sustainable to present. Although enormously valuable, they are a disconnection point with the sources of truth they present. We can see this split starkly if we look at publications  from those journals that chose not to create DOIs for their articles, relying instead just on the services provided by MedLine.

The shift to full names happened at different rates for men and women, and at least for publications associated with pubmed, technology influenced the practice

With the benefit of gender guessing technology, we note that progress towards first names has occurred at different rates for men and women. This is particularly stark for publications in PubMed.

Why is there a jump in 2002? As mentioned above, 2002 was the year that you could start to interact with author first names, with pubmed and medline incorporating it into their search. Although we cannot draw a direct causal connection, it is tempting to make the argument that this subtle shift in critical technology used by almost all medical researchers had a small but important impact on making research more inclusive. When we look at articles that have both a PubMed ID and a DOI, we can see that in 2002 the average number of first names on papers associated with women rose by 17%, and 13% for men. This jump is not present in publications that have not been indexed by PubMed.

For medical disciplines associated with papers in pubmed, after 2002 there also is a distinct difference in the rate of first name transformation for men and women. The rate of change for men is less than half that of women, rising only 5% in 20 years, compared to 12%. For some disciplines then, this raises a methodological challenge in gender studies as (at least based on author records,) the changes in participation rates of women in science must be disentangled from changes in the visibility of women in science.

Embracing initial transformation

Finally, the transition from initials to first names has happened slowly and without advocacy. Whilst this has been to our advantage in identifying some of the axis along which research transformation occurs, an argument could be made that, if first names help provide us (imperfectly) access to the diversity of experiences that are brought to research, then the pace of change has not been fast enough. For instance, could more have been made of the use of ORCiD to facilitate the shift to using first names so that older works by the same researcher identified by an initial based moniker could be linked to newer works that use the researchers full first name?

The transformation away from name formalism of course does not stop at author bylines. Name formalism is also embraced in reference formats. It could be argued that even within a paper, this formalism suppresses the diversity signal in the research that we encounter. Reference styles were defined in a different era with physical space constraints. Is it time to reconsider these conventions?
Within contribution statements that use the CRediT taxonomy, initials are also commonly employed to refer to authors. Here, this convention also creates disambiguation issues when two authors share the same surname and first initials. Here too, as the digital structure of a paper continues to evolve, we should be careful not to unquestioningly embed the naming conventions of a different era into our evolving metadata standards.

The post From initials to full names: How transparency and diversity emerged in author bylines appeared first on Digital Science.

A new campaign entitled ‘Research Transformation’ is being launched by Digital Science to celebrate the art of change within the research sector. 

Arising from the TL;DR initiative at Digital Science, Research Transformation will look at the challenging AI future that lies ahead with an openness to transformation, and – importantly – a willingness to approach these transformations collectively, both within organizations, and across broader research communities. Across three themes, the new campaign aims to highlight research transformation in the context of how:

• Research data can be transformed into actionable insights
• The changing role of research is affecting both those in academia and industry
• We can explore innovative ways to make research more open, inclusive and collaborative, for the benefit of all.

Led by Dr Mark Hahnel (VP of Open Research at Digital Science) and Simon Porter (VP of Research Futures), the campaign will not only seek to extend our understanding of the changes research elicits, but also celebrate these changes and how they are made.

“We are keen to explore research transformation from all angles, interweaving stories from the research ecosystem, with our own experiences of research transformation,” Dr Hahnel says.

“In this campaign, the steady march of digital transformation in society over the last three decades has led to changes in what it means to be a researcher, careers stemming from research and with the current focus on AI, what it means to perform research today and going forward.”

The focus for the Research Transformation campaign is not just about digital systems, but it is also about people and organizations – exploring links between research and industry, highlighting emerging research sectors, seeing how new narratives are created and how we adapt to the possibilities those changes bring.

“There is an art to transformation, and understanding the mechanisms of transformation places us in the best position to take advantage of the opportunities ahead,” says Mr Porter.

“At Digital Science, we have always sought to be an integral part of research transformation, aiming to provide products that enable the research sector to evolve research practice – from collaboration and discovery through to analytics and administration.”

“Every product and service that Digital Science has introduced to the market has not only addressed a need, but has also been an invitation to transform practices within the sector. We feel we have considerable expertise in considering research transformation, and look forward to an engaging conversation with the research community – particularly in this rapid period of evolution that we find ourselves in.”

For more details on the campaign, see the introductory blog and other relevant details here: https://www.digital-science.com/tldr/article/welcome-to-research-transformation/ 

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, ReadCube, Symplectic, IFI CLAIMS Patent Services, Overleaf, Writefull, OntoChem, Scismic and metaphacts – we believe when we solve problems together, we drive progress for all. Visit www.digital-science.com and follow @digitalsci on X or on LinkedIn.

Media contacts

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

The post Digital Science announces new campaign to celebrate and understand ‘research transformation’ appeared first on Digital Science.

One of the world’s largest scientific societies and the premier home of chemistry professionals publishes over 80 journals spanning all disciplines of the chemical sciences. The society’s Production Operations team is responsible for tasks like technical editing and proof review. As the organization grew, it needed more capacity, and they now leverage a global supply chain – including Writefull.

The team is also involved in developing and implementing new technologies, with a particular focus on how to make the best use of Artificial Intelligence. They looked into the concept of language modification done programmatically but were “really striking out with commercially available broad-sweeping tools. They did not perform well on our content.” What they needed was something that could suggest improvements to academic language usage, such as sentence structures in scientific writing or discipline-specific vocabulary.

Supporting the entire publishing workflow

Then the organization was introduced to Writefull. They were immediately intrigued by the specificity it offers, as Writefull’s models can be tailored to a particular niche of scientific content. After a competitive RFP process, they decided to work with Writefull, and together they began developing some of the services they have since operationalized.

Writefull’s full publisher solution offering supports each stage of the publishing pipeline, from submission to copy editing to quality assurance:

Over the years, the society has incorporated four unique tools from Writefull. A member of the Production Operations team explains: “We have a very rigorous method for evaluating the quality of each step of the production process. For example, one of the things we need to do when we evaluate quality involves scoring the language after copyediting. Traditionally, it would take a long time for one of our team members to complete a review like this, limiting the amount of content that could undergo quality review. But when we tailored Writefull’s Manuscript Categorization API to our requirements and benchmarked it against our own quality analysts, it reached over 95% alignment in categorising texts.” With such a high level of alignment, the automation of this task can significantly reduce the time spent on manuscript evaluation and allow more content to be reviewed for quality purposes.

The organization’s quality evaluation program also includes assessment of metrics such as whether author names and affiliations are present and correct. They use Writefull’s Metadata API to facilitate and partly automate this task, by extracting manuscript elements for post-editing quality assessment. This reduces the number of items in their quality evaluation that need manual review and the time spent reviewing them.

Another API they have adopted is Language Edit Assist (LEA), which auto-applies a highly customized subset of Writefull’s language edits to manuscripts prior to copyediting. The manuscript is then at a better starting point when it reaches the copyeditor, increasing efficiency in the editing process.

A transformative step

Writefull’s services have delivered multiple benefits to the society – including demonstrable time and cost savings.

A prime example comes from its recent analysis of LEA results. 715 papers were randomly split into two workflows, with manuscripts of similar language quality levels present in each workflow. Prior to technical editing, one group had automatic edits applied by Writefull’s LEA service and the other group did not. Without LEA applied, 58% of the papers were classified as well-written (the highest quality level). But with LEA applied, 81% of the papers were classified as well-written – enabling the organization’s copyeditors to focus their time on high-value-added edits, instead of on basic grammatical fixes, such as articles, punctuation, and conjunctions.

Additionally, editors at the society evaluated 35,000 individual edits made by LEA. After refinement using internal data, edits applied without error were 99.04%, and edits introducing errors were 0.96% – showing a high level of accuracy.

“It has been transformative,” says a member of the Production Operations team. “The data we’ve obtained has really been useful because it’s highly customized to our work. Having quality information at the right time is so important, and there’s a limit to what human manual efforts can do and when they can do it. Being able to do it programmatically with a high degree of accuracy gives you a wealth of data – and that means you get new insights into how you’re operating the business and the strategic directions you should consider.”

From strength to strength

There has been a high degree of adoption, and the society and Writefull are working together to refine the processes further.

They are now looking ahead at what this adoption and their new knowledge means for operational performance: “Is there some opportunity there for improving throughput or quality? What are the key metrics that this is going to impact? The next part is to manage that forward. We’re seeing the refinements boost the tools’ overall performance and increase staff buy-in further.”

Part of the project’s success is attributed to how well the organization and Writefull work together. Juan Castro, CEO and Co-founder of Writefull, reflects: “Many of the services we offer to publishers today are the fruits of our collaboration with this society. It is together that we have identified challenges, thought of solutions, and developed and vetted new technologies. I personally think LEA is the most exciting of all—it is such a powerful solution, which offers direct assistance. We look forward to many more future projects together.“

The society has found Juan and the wider Writefull team to be “very creative and collaborative, and they’ve really been engaged in coming up with innovative ways to overcome the challenges involved and achieve our goals. They’re a fantastic group to work with.”

If you’d like to explore how Writefull’s services could support your organization, request a demo. 

The post Writefull’s AI-powered tools transform academic publishing workflows appeared first on Digital Science.

Tell us a bit about yourself and your background, and how you came to start up your own startup.

I’m an economist, I come from Germany, and I studied at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. I also spent some time in Marseille, before I came to Switzerland and the University of St. Gallen (HSG) to do my PhD.

My start-up is a digital co-working platform called ConcentrAid (https://www.myconcentraid.com/). The original idea was born during lockdown when I started to work together with a colleague; it wasn’t like chatting, we’d just go online, work during the day, we had fixed sessions together, and we really enjoyed this way of working very much.

But then after the pandemic, when we had to come back to the institutes at HSG, it became very difficult to coordinate. We’d be asking each other questions such as “When are you working from home?” “Can we work together? “Oh no, one hour later would be nicer for me”… and we suddenly had a very high coordination cost for arranging those types of sessions.

So this is where the idea for ConcentrAid came from – we needed an easier way to arrange co-working sessions. We didn’t work on it immediately, but the idea never really died. So we had it in our heads still, and then came the point at which we decided we should go for it, and we started with the development last year.

So that’s an interesting point – as you alluded to, we run into various problems day-to-day, but we don’t always think “I’ll go and start a business to fix it”. Was there anything in particular that made you say “Actually, yeah this is something that we should do”?

Great question! I’d never thought about taking an idea and founding a company, but at the University of St. Gallen there are a number of start-ups, it’s strong in business, and it fosters that kind of entrepreneurship. Because of all these things, you’re more likely to meet PhD students who are already involved in a commercial/start-up project and it encourages you to think “I really believe in the idea. I also see that the technical implementation is feasible. So, why shouldn’t I do it? Why not?”. So that was it, basically!

Is it just you? Who have you got working with you at the moment, and how do you split your responsibilities?

Right now the team is the founder team, Caroline and myself. We have had a bit of support from a small student group, and a bit of technical support, but it’s mainly just us!  

In terms of splitting responsibilities, I would say we try to decide things together but when we have different opinions the person with more expertise in that specific field will have the final say. For example, Caroline is coming from the business side, she’s already founded a startup and digital platform and I greatly value her expertise in that. Whereas I would say that on the technological side, I would have the final say.

What is the core problem you’re trying to solve, and who are the kinds of people you think are most likely to benefit from it?

We have one, clear, target group, and that is academia. And the problem we solve is first of all productivity, which I think in itself is a huge topic. But we also help to solve the problem of having a network among researchers.

A major advantage of working remotely is that you’re very independent, and can be very flexible, in terms of your location. even across countries. But that can also be a disadvantage in the sense that you might miss some exchange relevant to your research, some random event at your university, or some chance meeting with colleagues. Not only from people at your own university, but from researchers in similar fields worldwide, especially as conferences are also now often virtual.

With digital co-working via ConcentrAid you can still have these exchanges with other research partners, both in your particular field but also more broadly; we try to connect researchers coming from different disciplines.

This builds upon the productivity aspect, which was our original idea for the platform, where you have very focused working time and working structure that supports your productivity and focus.

We see this combination as not just important for your immediate work, but also to help broaden your network and connections for future research collaborations and employment options.

This feels especially timely at the moment, following the period of enforced remote work due to the pandemic and the fragmented approaches to returning to the office. There’s a great opportunity in this area to try and figure out better ways to work together, I can see why you find it an exciting problem to work on.

What’s your solution – how does ConcentrAid work?

We have a platform where you can book a session, and we will match you with a person who comes from a related research field, or is in your list of favorite coworkers. Once you’ve agreed a time, it’s in your calendar, someone is waiting for you and so you are less likely to postpone it.

In essence we take the obligation we all feel to not skip meetings – because of the impact on the other attendees — and use that to help you properly set aside time to get your important work done.

It’s very much about behavioral triggers and it’s also about consistency. Because I know from my own experience, when I had a hard time on a paper, I’d tend to push it away, do other things I enjoyed more first, even though of course I know that at some stage I had to deal with it. Digital co-working really helps me to stay consistent, not put things off, and it helps me to see my own progress.

That’s what we offer with ConcentrAid. We call it social accountability: the other person holds you accountable to show up and go through with what you want to do.

Who do you see as your competitors? How does what you’re doing differ?

There is a US platform for co-working in general that is offering a similar service and feel. Where we differ is on the networking and our focus on academia. Typically you have products which either focus on productivity — you have a lot of productivity apps – or networking, but none that do both for academia. And even the co-working platform I mentioned, we see as a competitor but also as the proof of concept for what we’re doing for academia.

So we’re focusing on networking, we’re focusing on academia, that’s what’s different with ConcentrAid.

How far along is your platform? What stage of development are you at?

We have a working product, a very simple matching so you can book a session where you get matched with a partner. That works very well, although of course there’s always room for improvement!

Before we handed in our thesis, we tested this with groups of students.

How did you get those initial users to give it a try?

Very much word of mouth — it was our network and the network of our network, I would say. That was our first major test group, and it also gives us a nice feedback loop for things we are working on and trying to improve.

One of the great advantages when you’re working in a university or in academia in general is that people are very open when you approach them and ask them for feedback. It’s very supportive and helpful as a community, and so we could more or less directly approach almost everyone to ask for their feedback, and they were happy to talk to us!

We also used the platform a lot ourselves – for example I was using it to finish my thesis! So we also took part in working sessions with people and could just ask them directly, as we were observing first-hand their behavior. For example, initially we had quite a few issues with the video technology for the sessions, and we saw that if the first session had problems like this, people will not come back again after it doesn’t work! So it’s important for us to make sure people have a good first impression of the platform.

Is there a particular point at which people say “aha, I get it now, I see the benefit”?

Usually I would say it takes users two sessions: the first session people are still figuring out what it is, getting used to it – it’s almost like prep for the second session. Then in the second session you see they’re much more relaxed, they know it’s not complicated, and that’s when they get a lot of work done. And so at the end of the second session, that’s when they see what they’ve achieved, and they are like “I totally get this now”!

It’s an especially strong reaction because everyone knows a situation where they’ve been procrastinating,  putting off a task they don’t want to do. So to find a solution to that is really significant for them; it’s a gamechanger for how they approach their work.

I mean, I was definitely procrastinating — basically, I built this platform just to avoid working on my PhD!

That is taking procrastination to a whole new level!

Exactly! But even today — after handing in my PhD thesis, when I don’t have that same “motivation to procrastinate” anymore — I still enjoy having this working structure with the co-working time and everything. So I still keep using it, and that’s what we see in others too.

Looking to the future, what’s your business model for ConcentrAid? How do you see it working financially?

One advantage of it being a digital platform is that the scalability costs are fairly low — you have the initial development cost, you have the user acquisition cost, but the marginal costs are not that high, which is a huge advantage. So of course our model is based on that.

And we have our first paying customers!

Very nice! How did you get those first paying customers?

From our testing groups there was always a proportion who wanted to keep using it, and were happy to pay to do so. For example, PhD students in particular found it useful to help structure their day.

Interestingly not everyone uses it in the same way though — we see people who are really using it at a specific time of the day. Some would use it in the morning to start their day, others would have working first session in the afternoon to overcome the usual lull after lunch, and we had some others who would use it in the evenings to help them spend a concentrated hour of time before finishing for the day.

We also have some heavy users who really do use ConcentrAid to manage their entire home office working day! These are our super users! And I remember when the first person paid for a subscription, that was really cool, we were so happy! 😊

What would you like to achieve in the next six months to a year? Where do you want to have got to by the end of 2024?

We want to have growth, of course, but also to have a sustainable company with a strong community. That would be my personal goal.

We very much discussed the scalability to different markets, but for 2024 we are focused on continuing to  create a popular, useful solution for our target audience of academia. I want to create a solution that people in academia really enjoy to work with, because it’s very close to our hearts. We can then look to expand out into other markets off the back of that success.

That’s a great point to end on – it’s very important early on as a founder to be really focused on the needs of the user, and to care about their experience. If your early users get a sense from you that you know the problems they have, because you’ve experienced them yourself, and that you really care about solving those problems in a practical way, they will become the advocates that help you continue to grow and scale, and make ConcentrAid a success!

 —

To find out more about ConcentrAid, visit their website,  and you can find Elisabeth on LinkedIn.

To find out more about how Digital Science supports new start-ups, take a look at our investment opportunities.

The post Building a platform to prevent procrastination … to put off writing up my PhD! appeared first on Digital Science.

Digital Science, a technology company serving stakeholders across the research ecosystem, is pleased to announce that Bowel Research UK (BRUK) has chosen Symplectic Grant Tracker from Digital Science’s suite of flagship products to advance its aims of funding life-changing research into bowel cancer and other bowel diseases.

Designed from the outset to meet research funding needs, Symplectic Grant Tracker provides end-to-end grant management to foundations, charities and funders worldwide. Functionality includes intuitive form builder, multi-stage review and collaboration workflows, finance and budget tracking, contract and payment management, and support for integrated online committee meetings enabling live scoring and assessment during peer review. 

BRUK typically holds two funding rounds per year; the first for PhDs, and the second for small grants. The charity’s recently launched new ‘Hard to Fund’ Fund (HTFF) has been specially created to address the funding gap for bowel diseases and conditions that struggle for backing via conventional mechanisms. 

“Working with Symplectic Grant Tracker has streamlined our grants application process, with automation of various processes being key to saving us time,” said Georgia Sturt, Research & Grants Manager at BRUK. “This has allowed us to focus our resources on other aspects of our research portfolio, such as developing initiatives like the ’Hard to Fund’ Fund that invests in neglected topics within bowel research. The Grant Tracker team is always responsive and helpful, and we are grateful for their support as we have established this system within our organisation.”

“Bowel diseases and conditions affect a huge amount of people who are always seeking new treatments, cures, and ways to manage their condition,” said Brian Armour, Solutions Consultant for Symplectic Grant Tracker. “We’re excited by the opportunity to collaborate with Bowel Research UK and to support their grants lifecycle to ensure that funding for this life-changing research is allocated where it needs to be.”

About Bowel Research UK

Bowel Research UK is funding life-changing research into bowel cancer and other bowel diseases. Every year over 16,000 people die from bowel cancer in the UK and over a million suffer from bowel disease. By researching cutting edge treatments and investing in the best science, we’re saving and improving people’s lives. 

Bowel Research UK was founded in 2020 following a merger between two well-respected charities: Bowel & Cancer Research and Bowel Disease Research Foundation (BDRF). 

About Digital Science

Digital Science is a technology company working to make research more efficient. We invest in, nurture and support innovative businesses and technologies that make all parts of the research process more open and effective. Our portfolio includes admired brands Altmetric, Dimensions, Figshare, ReadCube, Symplectic, IFI CLAIMS Patent Services, Overleaf, Writefull, OntoChem, Scismic and metaphacts. We believe that together, we can help researchers make a difference. Visit www.digital-science.com and follow @digitalsci on Twitter or on LinkedIn.

About Symplectic Grant Tracker

Symplectic Grant Tracker delivers effective, impactful grants management for research funding organisations. With 15+ years of streamlining the management and administration of grant-making, we specialise in empowering mission-driven organisations to make strategic funding decisions. 

Symplectic Grant Tracker underpins the pre and post award processes for 50+ funding agencies who collectively award more than $2 billion annually, including The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and Versus Arthritis.

Media contact

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

The post Bowel Research UK chooses Symplectic Grant Tracker to power life-changing research appeared first on Digital Science.

Digital Science, a technology company serving stakeholders across the research ecosystem, is pleased to announce that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has chosen Altmetric and Dimensions from Digital Science’s flagship products to support its belief that research has the power to change lives.

CIHR – the Government of Canada’s health research investment agency, which funds world-class research across the country – has signed a single-year deal to utilize Altmetric Explorer for Institutions and Dimensions Analytics (with API), which enables customers to monitor and report on the online activity surrounding research published by an institution, while also benefiting from access to the full Altmetric database. 

Using Digital Science’s products and tools, CIHR will be able to monitor the online activity surrounding academic research, including the ability to browse by author, group or department for the institution, benchmark against peer organizations, report on the outcomes of outreach activity, and integrate the insights the data provides into evaluation and review processes at CIHR. 

More specifically, Dimensions and Altmetric will enable CIHR to:

• Use the API for Dimensions to extract publication and citation metadata of articles funded by the CIHR
• Extract the Altmetric score of CIHR funded publications
• Search the number of citations from CIHR grantees in international policy documents
• Understand Canada’s standing among the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations in related health research publications 
• Extract all publication metadata for a subset of researchers funded by the CIHR. 

Cat Williams, Managing Director of Data & Analytics at Digital Science, said: “We’re excited by the opportunity to collaborate with CIHR, and to assist with the implementation of their strategy to build the country’s research capabilities to save more lives in Canada and the rest of the world. We’re looking forward to helping CIHR better understand the impact its support is making through Canadian researchers and research programs.”

About CIHR

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) knows that research has the power to change lives. As Canada’s health research investment agency, it collaborates with partners and researchers to support the discoveries and innovations that improve people’s health and strengthen the health care system.

About Digital Science

Digital Science is a technology company working to make research more efficient. We invest in, nurture and support innovative businesses and technologies that make all parts of the research process more open and effective. Our portfolio includes admired brands Altmetric, Dimensions, Figshare, ReadCube, Symplectic, IFI CLAIMS Patent Services, Overleaf, Writefull, OntoChem, Scismic and metaphacts. We believe that together, we can help researchers make a difference. Visit www.digital-science.com and follow @digitalsci on Twitter or on LinkedIn.

About Altmetric

Altmetric is a leading provider of 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 customizable interactive dashboards to interrogate the data themselves, 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 Twitter.

About Dimensions

Part of Digital Science, Dimensions is the largest linked research database and data infrastructure provider, re-imagining research discovery with access to grants, publications, clinical trials, patents and policy documents all in one place. www.dimensions.ai. Follow @DSDimensions on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Media contact

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

The post CIHR chooses Digital Science to support discoveries for Canada’s health appeared first on Digital Science.