Digital Science is pleased to announce that Emerald Publishing has adopted Dimensions Author Check as part of Emerald’s ongoing commitment to research integrity.

Dimensions Author Check offers publishers a fast and reliable way to incorporate research integrity checks into their work, helping to support responsible and ethical publishing.

Built on Digital Science’s Dimensions – the world’s largest interconnected global research database – Dimensions Author Check offers unmatched transparency into authors’, editors’ and reviewers’ publishing and collaboration histories, accessible through an intuitive and visual dashboard.

Using the dashboard, publishers can thoroughly review the publishing history of a researcher and the people they’ve collaborated with, to spot any unusual activities, such as retractions, expressions of concern, or atypical collaboration patterns.

Sally Wilson, VP Publishing at Emerald, said: “The primary use case for Author Check is to support our due diligence processes when developing and reviewing new special issue proposals. It allows us to efficiently verify the academic credentials, publication history, and editorial experience of proposed guest editors and contributors, helping ensure they meet our editorial standards and ethical expectations.

“Additional use cases are to support our editor succession planning and commissioning activities, offering valuable insights into potential candidates’ research impact and professional networks.

“We hope by integrating Author Check into these workflows, we not only enhance the integrity and transparency of our editorial decision-making but also save time by streamlining what would otherwise be manual and time-consuming processes.”

Dr Leslie McIntosh, VP of Research Integrity at Digital Science, said: “We’re excited that Emerald has become the latest publisher to adopt Dimensions Author Check, further boosting Emerald’s commitment to supporting the integrity of the scholarly record.

“Dimensions Author Check empowers publishers to uphold trust and transparency in research by ensuring they have the best possible information at their fingertips – within seconds.”

About Emerald

Founded by management scholars in 1967, and now part of the Cambridge Information Group, Emerald Publishing provides a range of publishing services to help researchers tell their stories in a meaningful and timely way, providing innovative tools and services to build confidence and capability in impactful research. As a proud signatory of DORA, Emerald is committed to establishing new pathways to impact, making research more accessible, and helping communities make decisions that change their world for the better.

For over 55 years Emerald’s core purpose has been to champion fresh thinkers and help them make a difference so that little by little those in academia or in practice can unite to bring positive change in the real world. Emerald Publishing is proud to be a Times Top 50 Employer for Gender Equality 2025 – for the second year in a row – and one of the Top 50 Inspiring Workplaces in the UK and Ireland for 2025.

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 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 contacts

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

Tom Shiels, Communications Manager, Emerald Publishing: tshiels@emerald.com

The post Emerald Publishing to safeguard research integrity with Dimensions Author Check appeared first on Digital Science.

Scholarly publishers can now fully integrate research integrity checks into their editorial and submission workflows, thanks to Digital Science’s new Dimensions Author Check API, which launches today.

Built on Dimensions – the world’s largest interconnected global research database – Dimensions Author Check evaluates researchers’ publication and collaboration histories within seconds, delivering reliable, concise, structured insights.

For the first time, the new Dimensions Author Check API enables publishers to embed this functionality directly into their own workflows, without the need to switch to an outside platform.

Dr Leslie McIntosh, Vice President of Research Integrity at Digital Science, said Dimensions Author Check API is designed to support consistent and confident editorial decision-making.

“By highlighting key indicators of research integrity – such as retractions, tortured phrases, or unusual co-authorship patterns – the Dimensions Author Check API helps to rapidly identify potential issues for concern. These include continuously improving indicators that will identify paper mills and increase trust in science,” Dr McIntosh said.

“Importantly, the Author Check API can do this at scale, giving publishers the ability to screen multiple researchers per request. This makes it ideal for high-volume manuscript processing and broader editorial oversight.”

Key benefits of the new Dimensions Author Check API include:

• Seamless integration: A standards-based RESTful API designed for easy deployment within publishers’ internal systems or third-party platforms.
• Actionable insights: Clear summaries highlighting key aspects of researchers’ publication and collaboration histories.
• Operational efficiency: Reducing editorial workload while enhancing the quality and consistency of integrity assessments.
• Support for transparency and trust: Surfacing critical integrity information at key decision points, strengthening publishers’ ability to adhere to ethical standards.

Note to editors: The Dimensions Author Check dashboard was originally announced in December last year. This announcement is specific to the Dimensions Author Check API, which launches today.

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 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 to strengthen research integrity in publishing with new Dimensions Author Check API appeared first on Digital Science.

Reaching OA’s potential

One of the principal aims of Open Access (OA) has always been to democratize knowledge by making research free to read; however, that should be the starting point, not the ultimate goal. Perhaps it’s time to step back and ask ourselves, “Are we in danger of becoming preoccupied with the ‘access’ aspect of open – neglecting the other components that make research successful?”

In our rush to remove paywalls and ‘financial barriers’, could it be that we are simply equating ‘freely available’ to ‘truly accessible’? How valuable is making research content accessible without it being discoverable? And how beneficial is it for an end user to find content if they don’t see its relevance, or if they can’t act on it?

Access alone isn’t enough. If research isn’t discoverable, understandable, or actionable for the people who need it (policymakers, practitioners, researchers across regions and community organizations), then OA has fallen short of its full potential. 

The ability to get research into the hands of those who can fully capitalize on it is a crucial factor to research success, but in practice, significant gaps and disconnects are evident – particularly from a data and systems perspective. We have made huge progress in terms of the volume of research that is technically ‘open’, however we now need to find out who is actually benefiting.

Current narrative suggests that OA articles are more likely to be cited – but our data suggests this isn’t universally true, or at least that there is more to the story. In addition, citations alone don’t tell us who’s engaging with the content or whether it’s reaching communities outside of academia.

If equity in research means the ability to publish and participate in research fairly, (regardless of location, career stage or discipline), should we accept that the measure of success is whether an article has been published OA? Or should we be measuring success based on whether the research achieves its intended aims, reaches its intended audience, and enables meaningful participation across global research communities?

This blog will look at what ‘access’, taken in isolation, is and what it isn’t. Using data from Dimensions, extracted from the Dimensions on GBQ environment alongside World Bank data on GBQ, we challenge the notion that emphasis on publishing OA is enough to ensure equitable participation. We explore what happens when we focus on access without discoverability. We assess whether research participation is happening in a balanced way or whether there are barriers to journal publication – including but not limited to Article Processing Charges (APCs) – and engagement.

To help us with this, we have conducted a benchmarking and data interpretation exercise to understand the wider problem of participation in research. 

SDGs case study

Let’s begin with a common assumption: that publishing is the ultimate goal for a researcher, and that lower-middle and low-income countries struggle to publish OA at the same rate as upper-middle and high-income countries due to the financial challenges associated with APCs.

The visual on the left (in Chart 1) shows us the number of gold OA articles published in 2023. This view alone might suggest that lower-income countries are being prevented from publishing OA compared to upper-income countries. However, benchmarking against the overall amount of research from these regions shows the reverse – low-income (LIC) and lower-middle-income countries (LMIC) are producing proportionately more OA content.

With this data in mind we dismiss the notion that a general analysis of open participation will drive further insight and shift to participation at journal level. For this analysis, it is useful to consider participation in these terms: where there is intent to contribute to a research topic, is that intent being met or prevented through journal selection and traditional impact measures?

To see this in action, we decided to focus this case study on Indonesian researchers’ contribution to SDG 4, Quality Education.

• We focused on Indonesia because in 2023 Indonesia was the second-highest producer of research articles among LMIC countries with a high amount of OA content. (NB: We will not delve into the reasons behind Indonesia’s high output in this piece.)
• We focused on SDG 4 because Indonesian researchers produced a substantial, and outsized, amount of Quality Education research. More than any other country and roughly 10% of overall research aligned to SDG 4 (as seen in Chart 2).

In a world where participation in global research was truly balanced and contributions to knowledge were reflected proportionally, if Indonesia contributes 10% of overall research to quality education, we would hope to see the 10% Indonesian representation happen at journal level as well.

To view this, we analyzed journals publishing the most research articles aligned with SDG 4 and benchmarked them against common markers for citation impact and attention. We then assessed the representation of Indonesian research within these journals. Specifically, we calculated the proportion of SDG 4-aligned research with at least one Indonesian-affiliated researcher, aiming for a 10% representation rate. The results are shown in the visual below (Chart 3).

Our journal-level analysis revealed that the desired 10% participation rate was not met. There was an imbalance within the journals around the level of Indonesian research present. Notably, this imbalance occurred across varying access types and associated publication fees. At the top, Education and Information Technologies, our highest-cited journal, a hybrid title, showed ~2% Indonesian representation. Education Sciences, a gold title that scored middle-ish for citation average, has less than 1%. The largest portion of Indonesian research appeared at the bottom left in two diamond-access, regional titles where we saw lower average scores in both citation and attention.

Therefore, a barrier may be the APCs; usually higher for market leading, established journals. (We’d highlight that Cogent Education is the closest to meeting the 10% participation rate and is a publication that does charge an APC but also offers waivers for LIC and LMIC countries.) However, this is just one of many potential barriers to equitable participation and one addressed by programs like Research4Life and publisher-led, global discounting practices. Our focus here was viewing the research holistically, taking into account how open practices have supported or hindered participation through both journal selection and research impact.

This view (Chart 3) highlights the challenge seasoned publishers face in balancing publication preferences, what motivates or prevents a researcher to select that journal, and readership habits, which encompass both accessibility and discoverability, the kind of discoverability established journals typically offer. The low metrics for the diamond OA journals (bottom left, Chart 3) illustrate the challenge for journals of ensuring research reaches readers.

Publisher mediation

To look closer at the intersection between the two sides publishers must mediate to ensure research meets its potential, we first focus on publication preferences. Many publishers aim to remove participation barriers so we can share quality research in a balanced, fully representational way. How can publishers work to ensure this proportional representation?

One approach is reducing costs of APCs, another is raising awareness. Emerald Publishing uses Dimensions data to benchmark the locale of research relative to our journal level subjects and try to balance Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) selection proportionally. This practice aims to inform publishers and editors where the research is coming from, without compromising EAB selection quality; addressing this at journal level regardless of access type or other unintended barriers.

The other aspect of this publisher mediation, and the one crucial to ensuring research is seen by the intended audience, is understanding reader habits. It is important  to understand the benefits of making research openly accessible versus accessible, findable, and usable. Access in isolation, without the presence of discoverability to ensure the work reaches the end user, is not enough.

Below we can see the average citations for the top 100 most productive countries by access type (Table 1). We conclude from this brief view that hybrid titles generate more citation activity as they are the established journals that have an established readership base.

It is probable that the imbalance in Indonesian representation is shaped by the age and prestige of journals themselves. For the most part, Open Access journals are younger than their subscription-based closed counterparts, and because Journal Impact Factors (JIFs) are based on a two-year citation window, newer journals (both open and closed access) are naturally disadvantaged.

As a result, newer journals that cover emerging or interdisciplinary areas, such as research aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), may find it difficult to achieve similar visibility and ‘reputation’. This creates a compounding effect: newer OA journals may be more inclusive and open to geographically diverse contributions, yet they lack the discoverability and citation momentum of older, established titles.

In turn, researchers from countries like Indonesia are more likely to publish in regional, Diamond OA journals – which remain under-recognized in global research metrics despite playing a crucial role in local knowledge and research ecosystems. 

This echoes the concerns raised in the Budapest Open Access Initiative 20th anniversary recommendations (BOAI20), which call for a more equitable and inclusive approach to Open Access – one that recognizes the value of diverse publication venues, fosters participation from underrepresented communities, and moves beyond outdated prestige indicators.

This points to a deeper issue: when discoverability and prestige are unequally distributed across journals, people may judge research quality based on where it’s published, rather than on the actual quality of the research.

A pattern emerges

This brings us to further consider the practice of prioritizing access above all else, how this may perpetuate bias in the system arising from assessing research quality based on its potential reach, and how that can be hindered by the journal itself.

We examined the quality of Indonesian research in high-output titles and found that when venue and discoverability practices align, Indonesian research citations are above average, dispelling any assumption about overall ‘quality’ that may arise from most Indonesian researchers prioritizing access when selecting journal (Chart 4).

This prompted a further question: Even when quality is demonstrable, is it being recognized globally? A parallel analysis examining citation practices across all low-income countries allowed us to test whether the patterns we observed with Indonesian research reflect broader systemic issues. We found a consistent pattern: research from low-income countries is often overlooked in citation practices, even when it is highly relevant and well-aligned with global priorities and even when it aligns closely with the focus of the citing publication.

In a parallel analysis, we found a consistent pattern: research from low-income countries is often overlooked in citation practices, even when it is highly relevant and well-aligned with global priorities and even when it aligns closely with the focus of the citing publication.

The parallel analysis examined global research output from 2013 to 2023, focusing on contributions to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), excluding SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) given its high proportion of research. Using author affiliations from the Dimensions database, we categorized publications by author country and matched them to World Bank income group classifications. This allowed us to compare research priorities between high-income and low-income countries over this time.

As shown in the chart below, there are clear differences in thematic focus. Researchers in low-income countries disproportionately prioritize areas like SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation – topics that directly reflect the urgent, lived realities in these regions. In contrast, high-income countries show a stronger focus on SDGs such as Affordable and Clean Energy and Partnerships for the Goals. These differing priorities demonstrate the local expertise and indigenous knowledge embedded in lower-income regions – expertise that, as shown in our citation analysis, is not being adequately acknowledged or cited in global research outputs.

In critical areas such as Zero Hunger and Clean Water and Sanitation – topics where low-income countries often hold deep, practical expertise – our citation analysis reveals minimal inclusion of their work by researchers in high-income countries. Specifically, just 0.2% of references in high-income country publications on these SDGs cite publications where authors are based solely in low-income countries. In contrast, over 70% of the references come from publications with authors affiliated exclusively with high-income institutions (74% for Zero Hunger and 71% for Clean Water and Sanitation).

Even when we broaden the scope to include any contribution from a low-income country, the numbers remain stark: 1.41% for Zero Hunger and 1.22% for Clean Water and Sanitation. This is despite the fact that these regions face the most urgent realities tied to these challenges – and who are actively publishing in these areas.

These findings point to a clear disconnect between where expertise exists and where it is recognized. In both Zero Hunger and Clean Water and Sanitation, areas where low-income countries have direct, practical experience, we see how research is vastly under-cited by high-income country publications. This underrepresentation suggests a missed opportunity to draw on locally grounded knowledge that could meaningfully shape global solutions.

Conclusion

This isn’t about a lack of relevant research. It’s about discoverability, visibility, and deeply embedded citation habits. Open Access isn’t just about making research available, it’s about making sure that research is seen, used, and respected within the global knowledge ecosystem.

Emerald has recently launched the Open Lab, which looks at the research ecosystem and how open practices impact it. Its goal is to find real solutions to some of the problems not yet addressed by open practices and some of the problems created by them.

We hope this analysis encourages thoughtful discussion on where the focus should shift, thus allowing us to effectively evaluate the success of Open Access and help ensure that all research can meet its full potential.

Authors:

Ann Campbell, Technical Solutions Manager, Digital Science
Katie Davison, Insights Analyst, Emerald Publishing

The post Access vs Engagement – is OA enough? appeared first on Digital Science.

This new dashboard is aimed at innovation, tech transfer, and economic development teams at universities, who need the kinds of insights only Dimensions can provide to inform their strategy and outreach.

Built on Dimensions – the world’s largest interconnected global research database – the dashboard offers rich, shareable visualizations and unique metrics, such as “corporate proximity” to reflect past industry engagement.

With Dimensions Industry Partnerships, institutions can:

• Quickly identify faculty members with proven industry engagement
• Discover IP citations, funding patterns, and researcher networks
• Surface high-potential collaborators and commercialization opportunities
• Benchmark institutional strengths against peers
• Save hours of manual data gathering with intuitive, shareable insights

Digital Science’s Executive Vice President of Academic Markets, Jonathan Breeze, says: “Universities are looking to accelerate the impact of their research and drive more effective industry collaborations, but they need to do so in smarter, faster, easier ways. We now have the right solution for them with Dimensions Industry Partnerships.

“Such collaborations offer many benefits for both universities and industry alike, with research and innovation being critical levers for economic growth and stability. Digital Science is excited to be playing a unique role in this, enabling institutions to conduct a strategic, data-driven approach to their tech transfer and commercialization activities.”

Discover more about Dimensions Industry Partnerships and request a demo today: https://www.dimensions.ai/products/all-products/dimensions-industry-partnerships/

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 @DSDimensions on X and LinkedIn.

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.

The post Digital Science makes industry-university collaboration easier with new Dimensions Industry Partnerships appeared first on Digital Science.