Jon Treadway, Director at Great North Wood Consulting, delivered the opening keynote, outlining the challenges facing scholarly communication. He highlighted the shift towards isolationism in the geopolitical landscape, impacting scientific collaboration. Treadway emphasized that scholarly communication remains inefficient and fragmented, with AI advancements posing both opportunities and risks. He cautioned that AI’s rapid progress demands vigilance and noted that Open Access has yet to reach its full potential due to siloed discussions rather than collaborative efforts. 

The first panel focused on ensuring transparency and trustworthiness in research. Panelists included Leslie McIntosh, Vice President of Research Integrity at Digital Science; Laura Wilson, Head of Research Integrity & Ethics at Taylor & Francis; Jennifer Wright, Head of Publication Ethics & Research Integrity at Cambridge University Press; and Doug Melville, Technical Product Manager at Sage. Key concerns discussed were AI’s impact on research, the need for transparent licensing conditions, and the challenge of ensuring research security. The panel emphasized that publishers play a critical role in upholding standards, holding the “gold” in narratives and research culture. Collaboration across the industry, especially in disambiguating author identities and spotting bad actors, was stressed as vital to safeguarding integrity.

Ann Campbell, Technical Solutions Manager at Digital Science, and Katie Davison, Insights Analyst at Emerald Publishing, presented a case study on how they’ve worked together to leverage Dimensions on GBQ for data-driven insights. They demonstrated how combining Emerald Publishing’s strategic goals with Dimensions’ extensive dataset allowed them to uncover valuable insights about research trends, author collaborations, and institutional impact. By harnessing these insights, Emerald was able to identify key growth areas, refine their editorial strategies, and better align their publishing efforts with the needs of the academic community.

The second panel addressed how publishers are adapting their strategies in response to evolving social media platforms. The panel included Lou Peck, CEO & Founder of The International Bunch; Jitske de Vries, Head of Marketing at The Company of Biologists; Rowena Gordon, Senior Managing Editor at the British Ecological Society; Daisy Veysey, Social Media Manager at eLife; and Marion Schnelle, Social Media Manager at De Gruyter Brill. Discussions highlighted the emergence of platforms like Mastodon and Bluesky as an alternative to X (formerly Twitter). It was raised that in a poll of 6000 readers of Nature, 70% had moved over from X to Bluesky declaring the platform nicer, kinder and less antagonistic. The panel also raised a growing emphasis on community-building strategies over traditional marketing tactics among publishers. 

Next, Sarah Greaves, Director and Publishing Consultant at Sarah Greaves STEM Consulting, discussed the ongoing trend of consolidation in the publishing industry. She explored how mergers and acquisitions are reshaping the landscape, the potential benefits of improved efficiencies, and concerns about reduced diversity and potential monopolistic behaviors. 

Our lightning talks provided valuable insights into our latest innovations for publishers. Nicholas Bailey, our Senior Product Manager, introduced Dimensions Author Check, our new research integrity tool designed to help publishers verify potential authors, editors, and reviewers. Meanwhile, Mike Taylor, Head of Data Insights, showcased the Altmetric Journal Benchmark dashboard – a powerful resource for publishers seeking to measure success, benchmark their journals against competitors, and identify growth opportunities.

In the closing keynote, Jo Wixon, Director of External Analysis at Wiley, explored how publishers can actively contribute to advancing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). She emphasized the growing importance of aligning publishing practices with global sustainability efforts, showcasing strategies for integrating SDG-related content and metrics into editorial workflows, peer review processes, and publication strategies. By adopting these practices, publishers can amplify research that addresses critical global challenges while enhancing their impact within the academic community.

Our 2025 Publisher Day highlighted both the opportunities and challenges publishers face in adapting to AI advancements, strengthening research integrity, and responding to shifts in social media landscapes. With increasing consolidation and technological disruption, the industry must work collaboratively to ensure the integrity, accessibility, and credibility of scholarly communication.

About the Author

Olivia King, Marketing Segment Lead, Publisher | Digital Science

Olivia King is Marketing Segment Lead for the Publisher segment at Digital Science. In this role, she manages the marketing activities and strategy across the Digital Science publisher solutions, including Altmetric and Dimensions. Before joining Digital Science, Olivia worked in journals marketing at Sage Publishing.

The post Publisher Day 2025: Key Insights on Integrity, Disruption, and Innovation in Scholarly Publishing appeared first on Digital Science.

Karolinska Institutet (KI), one of the world’s leading medical universities, is advancing its research visibility and open science initiatives through an integrated research information management system powered by Symplectic Elements and Figshare. By implementing these solutions, KI has streamlined how research information is managed, presented, and accessed, enhancing both internal efficiency and external collaboration.

• Unified Research Information Management: Discover how KI integrated Symplectic Elements as its Research Information Management System (RIMS) and Figshare as its open repository, creating a seamless and accessible research ecosystem.
• Enhanced Research Discoverability: Learn how KI RIMS ensures that up-to-date information on researchers and research groups is easily accessible, both internally and externally, with automatic updates reflected on KI’s public website.
• Advancing Open Science: See how KI Open Archive (powered by Figshare) facilitates the sharing of research outputs, aligning with the FAIR principles to make research more Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable.
• Streamlined Workflows & Automation: Explore how automated integrations with HR, publications, and grants data have significantly reduced manual administrative burdens, allowing researchers to focus on their work.

The post Whitepaper: Karolinska Institutet: Transforming Research Visibility and Accessibility with Symplectic Elements and Figshare appeared first on Digital Science.

2024 Rankings Showcase Acceleration of R&D Pursuits: Waste Mitigation Inventions Flourished Last Year. Creating Non-Traditional Protein and Manipulating RNA Viruses Also Appear on the Top 10 Fastest Growing Technologies, According to Annual Patent Study by IFI CLAIMS

Tuesday 14 January 2025

New Haven, Conn., Jan. 14, 2025—After four years of decline, U.S. patent grants headed upward, rising 3.8 percent from calendar year 2023 to 324,043 and Samsung retained the top spot for the third year in a row, according to IFI CLAIMS Patent Services, the world’s most trusted patent data source.

IFI CLAIMS Patent Services is a Digital Science company that compiles and tracks data from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and other patent-issuing agencies around the globe. IFI translates its world-leading data into an annual U.S. Top 50 and Top 10 Fastest Growing Technologies patent ranking, providing valuable insights into companies’ R&D activity.

In addition to grants being up, U.S. patent applications were at an all-time high, up 3 percent from 418,111 in 2023 to 430,625 in 2024, an indicator the overall U.S. innovation economy is stronger than ever.

This year, contract chip maker TSMC stepped into second place, ahead of Qualcomm, which moved down to third—according to IFI’s 2024 U.S. Top 50 Ranking. Apple and Huawei rounded out the top five, all ahead of IBM, which slipped to eighth place. IBM previously held the top spot for 29 consecutive years, but the company adopted a more selective patenting strategy and was unseated by Samsung two years ago.

“It’s good to see patent grants heading in the right direction again,” said Ronald Kratz, CEO of IFI CLAIMS Patent Services. “Grants had been sinking since the start of the pandemic, likely because of the backlog of unexamined patents piling up. The USPTO has been hiring more examiners to deal with the accumulation, so it looks like that’s having a positive effect.” The USPTO backlog grew to 813,000 unexamined applications in 2024, up from 750,000 in 2023. Before COVID, the buildup was 540,000.

Summing up the U.S. Top 50 rankings

Samsung stayed on top and managed to grow its patent count year over year, from 6,165 in 2023 to 6,377 in 2024, a rise of 3 percent. In fact, of all patents granted in the U.S. last year, Samsung took nearly 2 percent of the pie. TSMC climbed a rung in the ranking, bringing in 3,989 patents compared to 3,687 in 2023, an improvement of 8 percent. Qualcomm, last year’s previous second place finisher, slipped a notch this year with an 11 percent decline in grants from 3,854 to 3,422. Apple scaled three places, landing in fourth this year. Google also climbed three spots to tenth place. Meanwhile, the much-followed patent stalwart IBM ticked down another four spots in 2024 but remains in the top 10.

The biggest gainers on the Top 50 all hail from Asia: Changxin Memory Technologies (+57 places), Tencent (+54), and LG Energy (+37). As for the so-called Magnificent Seven, the tech companies Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Nvidia, and Tesla, which continued their magnificent stock run in 2024, only the first four had enough patents to make the Top 50 and the latter three were conspicuously absent.

U.S. companies granted fewer patents

Although American companies won the highest number of patents (143,382), the majority of U.S. patents (56 percent) were earned by firms outside of the U.S.: Japanese companies were awarded 43,364 patents, placing the country in second place, followed by China (28,258), South Korea (24,115), and Germany (14,044). Of the top 10 countries in patents granted, eight saw their numbers tick up. China, by far, rose the most: 32 percent more than 2023; Switzerland saw the second highest surge in growth, up 21 percent. Only the U.S. and Taiwan dropped, by 4 percent and 5 percent respectively.

Fastest Growing Technologies don’t go to waste

IFI’s Top 10 Fastest Growing Technologies ranking is based on patent applications—a better proxy than grants for technologies that are currently progressing because the lag time is significantly shorter.

The fastest growing technology in 2024 is operating or servicing cells, which rose more than 27 percent from 2020-2024, a technology that is related to electrolytic methods. This is the first year this technology has appeared on the list. But the most remarkable aspect of this year’s ranking is that three of the Top 10 are taken up by technologies that seek to diminish waste: reclaiming non-ferrous metals (CAGR 26.2 percent), recovery of waste materials (CAGR 26.1 percent), and destroying solid waste (CAGR 17.7 percent). Clearly, companies inventing in these areas believe there are future profits to be had for innovations that make the world more sustainable. Another technology along the theme of sustainability that is growing quickly: working up protein from non-traditional sources (CAGR: 22.6 percent), a necessity as the global population grows.

“Despite all the market’s attention on AI, we saw technologies like machine learning, which underpins artificial intelligence, slope downward,” said Kratz. “But we’re not surprised by that. Those were the fast growers that preceded the present AI bonanza and have been on our list in the years leading up to it. That’s why investors should be paying attention to growing patent classes. It helps them get ahead of the curve.”

To view the report, visit the 2024 Top 10 Fastest Growing Technologies.

Patent activity provides valuable insight into companies’ R&D activity for researchers, analysts, and investors. It speaks to productivity, technological efficiency and IP strategy, and frequently reveals technology trends and the competitive landscape within various industries. Often the true value of a company lies with its intellectual properties, so examining patent assets is a key tool in gauging the intangible assets of publicly traded companies.

To create your own analysis, visit the IFI CLAIMS Live 1000, a free tool which uses data from the top 1000 companies that received patents across multiple countries and patent jurisdictions. The tool shows live data and offers interactive features that allow users to create and sort their own lists using a variety of filters.

About IFI CLAIMS Patent Services

IFI CLAIMS Patent Services uses proprietary data architecture to produce the industry’s most accurate patent database. The CLAIMS Direct platform allows for the easy integration of applications, other data sets, and analysis software. Headquartered in New Haven, Conn., with a satellite office in Barcelona, Spain, IFI CLAIMS is part of Digital Science, a digital research technology company based in London. For more information, visit www.ificlaims.com and follow IFI on 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

For media inquiries and interviews, please contact Lily Iacurci, Marketing Manager, IFI CLAIMS Patent Services: lily.iacurci@ificlaims.com

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

The post Samsung takes top spot in U.S. patents for third year running while TSMC rises into second place; after four-year falloff, grants increase nearly 4% appeared first on Digital Science.

Amna Babiker

a.babiker@digital-science.com

• LinkedIn

Marko Zovko

m.zovko@digital-science.com

• LinkedIn

Emily Greco

e.greco@digital-science.com

• LinkedIn

News from the region: Digital Science partnerships in the Middle East & Africa

Tech in Gov 2025

12th August 2025 | Australia

Conference

Digital Science is proud to be exhibiting again at one of Australia’s Biggest Government-focused conferences; Tech in Gov 2025. We look forward to welcoming people to our stand to learn more about our range of services and products that can help your department and company.

Find out more

ARMS 2025

10th September 2025 | Australia

Conference

DigiGov 2025

24th September 2025 | United Kingdom

Conference

International Data Week 2025

13th October 2025 | Australia

Conference

Altmetric

Offers real-time insights into online engagement with research, enabling you to monitor social media, news outlets, policy documents, blogs, and more, to understand and demonstrate the broader influence of your work.

Dimensions

Global data, enriched and interlinked, allowing you to identify, fund and manage high-impact research. The only research intelligence service with data across the full research lifecycle that makes finding and interpreting global research data fast and simple.

Figshare

Track the reach and influence of your research, enabling you to easily view and showcase the attention surrounding your institution’s research.

Symplectic

Supports institutions, nonprofits, and NGOs to improve their internal data with industry-leading approaches.

ReadCube

A leader in scalable literature management, enhancing research driven teams by transforming the way scholarly literature is accessed, organized, reviewed, shared, and monitored.

Overleaf

The scientific and technical writing platform trusted by millions of users worldwide for its powerful LaTeX editor, and seamless collaboration features. Secure on-premises and cloud solutions available.

Grant Tracker

Grant Tracker helps to streamline the management and administration of grant-making and ensuring that your grant funding is strategic and impactful.

Demonstrating Impact

Evaluate the real-world impact of funding decisions and identify the academic, economic, and societal impact of your funding

Find out more

Horizon Scanning & Tech Watch

Map the global research landscape, monitor emerging technologies, and understand topics that are growing quickly within a specific research area

Find out more

Research Security

Assess foreign influence, vet researchers, comply with government mandates, and assess and prioritize potential risk to make the most efficient use of your resources

Find out more

Portfolio Analysis

Demonstrate impact and identify emerging growth areas for further investment and talent recruitment

Find out more

Finding Experts

Quickly uncover new, qualified reviewers for grant applications and eliminate identified conflicts of interest

Find out more

Special Instances

We can create private or custom instances that address special client needs such as security requirements and private data integration

Find out more

Our latest insights delivered straight to your inbox

Sign up for our newsletter to stay updated on the latest developments in the research ecosystem, as well as insights into the latest news from Digital Science.

Additional Resources and Further Reading specific to MEA region

Dimensions data used in landmark white paper

Read now

Research performance report Egypt

Read now

Africa Webinar

Read now

The post MEA appeared first on Digital Science.

Programme

Session 1

9:40 – 9:50 am
Welcome & Introduction
Speaker: Helen Cooke, SVP Sales – Publisher Markets, Digital Science

9:50 – 10:20 am
Keynote 1: Scene Setting: Reflections on the Publishing Landscape
Speaker: Jon Treadway, Director, Great North Wood Consulting

*** 10:20 – 10:40 am: 20 MINUTE BREAK ***

10:40 – 11:20 am
Panel 1: Strengthening Research Integrity
Speakers:
– Leslie McIntosh, Vice President of Research Integrity, Digital Science
– Laura Wilson, Head of Research Integrity & Ethics, Taylor & Francis
– Jennifer Wright, Head of Publication Ethics & Research Integrity, Cambridge University Press
– Doug Melville, Technical Product Manager, Sage

*** 11:20 – 11:40 am: 20 MINUTE BREAK ***

Session 2

11:40 – 12:00 pm
Emerald Publishing: Dimensions GBQ Case Study
Speakers:
– Ann Campbell, Technical Solutions Manager, Digital Science
– Katie Davison, Insights Analyst, Emerald Publishing

*** 12:00 – 1:00 pm: 60 MINUTE LUNCH BREAK ***

Session 3:

1:00 – 1:10 pm
Lighting Talk 1: Benchmarking for Publishing Success
Speaker: Mike Taylor, Head of Data Insights, Digital Science


1:10 – 1:50 pm
Panel 2: Adapting to a New Social Media Landscape
Speakers:
– Lou Peck, CEO & Founder, The International Bunch
– Jitske de Vries, Head of Marketing, The Company of Biologists
– Rowena Gordon, Senior Managing Editor, British Ecological Society
– Daisy Veysey, Social Media Manager, eLife
– Marion Schnelle, Social Media Manager, De Gruyter Brill

*** 1:50 – 2:10pm: 20 MINUTE BREAK ***

2:10 – 2:20 pm
Lighting Talk 2: Consolidation in the Market – What it Means for Publishers
Speakers: Sarah Greaves, Director and Publishing Consultant, Sarah Greaves STEM Consulting

2:20 – 2:50 pm
Quiz:
Hosted by: Helen Cooke, SVP Sales – Publisher Markets, Digital Science

*** 2:50 – 3:10pm: 20 MINUTE BREAK ***

Session 4:

3:10 – 3:40 pm
Keynote 2: How Publishers Can Elevate the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Speaker: Jo Wixon, Director – External Analysis, Wiley


3:40 – 3:50 pm
Lighting Talk 3: Spotlight on Dimensions Author Check
Speaker: Nicholas Bailey, Senior Product Manager, Digital Science


3:50 – 4:00 pm
Wrap up & Thank You:
Speaker: Helen Cooke, SVP Sales – Publisher Markets, Digital Science

*** DAY CONCLUDES ***

The post Digital Science Publisher Day 2025: Online programme appeared first on Digital Science.

Discover how research information management systems (RIMS) and public profiling tools are transforming the way universities connect with industry, maximize resource visibility, and drive economic growth.

This new whitepaper explores the evolving role of industry partnerships in research institutions and how RIMS help universities and research organizations showcase their full potential – from faculty expertise to specialized equipment. With case studies from the University of Toronto and the Ohio Innovation Exchange (OIEx), this whitepaper offers best practices and practical insights for fostering collaboration and innovation.

• Maximizing Research Visibility: How universities can increase visibility of their assets, equipment and expertise, making them accessible for potential collaborators.
• Driving Economic Growth: Learn how tech transfer and strategic partnerships accelerate innovation and create new revenue opportunities.
• Real-World Success Stories: Case studies from DiscoverResearch at the University of Toronto and the Ohio Innovation Exchange, showcasing impactful partnerships.
• Best Practices for Profiling Tools: Strategies for implementing and promoting profile portals to engage both internal and external stakeholders.

Who Should Read This Whitepaper

This whitepaper is designed for research managers, tech transfer leaders, university administrators, and anyone interested in advancing industry-academic partnerships.

The post Whitepaper: Catalyzing Collaboration: How Research Information Management Systems Drive Academic-Industry Partnerships appeared first on Digital Science.

1. Open research is transforming research, but barriers remain

• Open research cited as most positive change in last five years
• Open research top change the community would like to see in the next five years
• Challenges in open research include lack of awareness, funding, support, resources and infrastructure
• Concerns around data security, research quality and competitiveness

Download report

2. Research metrics are evolving to emphasize holistic impact and inclusivity

• Frustration with traditional metrics, but they still hold weight
• Call for a more holistic evaluation of research impact and quality
• A limited shift to more responsible use of traditional metrics and introduction of alternative metrics
• Institutes addressing academic culture issues but need greater recognition for non-traditional contributions   

Download report

3. AI’s transformative potential is huge, but bureaucracy and skill gaps threaten progress

• Emerging technologies will continue to impact roles over the next five years
• New technology expected to drive efficiencies in data and analytics, and open research
• Call to address AI skills gap and introduce change management strategies
• Enthusiasm for AI tempered by concerns around ethics, security and integrity, as well as AI bias, hallucinations and impact on critical thinking

Download report

4. Collaboration is booming, but increasing concerns over funding and security

• Interconnected technology and open research support greater global connectivity
• Collaboration has multiple benefits e.g. can increase citations and enhance research quality
• Easy to find collaborators, but scarce funding to support partnership
• Increasing concerns around research security and ‘damaging’ collaborations

Download report

5. Security and risk management need a strategic and cultural overhaul

• Security threats putting international research collaborations at risk
• Institutions tasked to balance risk and innovation, but they aren’t equipped
• Risk management conflicts with other priorities
• Tendency to ‘wait and see’, rather than proactive management

Download report

AI

• How can we share a framework where we can trust the automation AI provides throughout researcher workflows?
• How can cultural change be achieved in time for such a fast-changing phenomenon?

Open

• Is open research an inevitability? 
• How do we define research security in the context of open research, where academic freedom is balanced with responsibility?

Impact

• What is ‘real impact,’ and can it be measured beyond rankings?
• With geopolitics creating an environment that reduces opportunities for collaboration, what are the implications for academia in a more siloed research world?

Open

Find out more

Impact

Find out more

AI

Find out more

Collaboration

Find out more

Security

Find out more

Management

Find out more

Additional resources

Research Transformation Press Release

Read now

Key takeaways for the library

Read now

Key takeaways for the research office

Read now

Mark Hanhel discusses report findings on Charleston ATG podcast

Watch now

Video of report key findings

Read report

Embracing change: open research in the age of AI

Watch now

Latest insights

Altmetric 500

Read now

Automating NIH grants compliance with Symplectic Elements

Read now

The University of Malta: driving an open data culture change

Read now

The history of research security

Learn more

The post Research Transformation – Academic Survey Report appeared first on Digital Science.

Dimensions: Linked data solutions for smarter analysis

Investigating Technology Foresights

Webinar

Explore the role of Dimensions to gain competitive insights of increasingly complex research fields and rapidly growing markets.

Navigating the AI landscape: understanding trends, jargon, and data readiness

Whitepaper

This white paper looks at trends in AI research outputs, and reveals a surge in AI-related research, especially after 2020, coinciding with the rise of Generative AI and large language models (LLMs).

Horizon scanning, technology watch and technology foresight

Use case

Horizon scanning, technology watch, and technology foresight are all research activities that involve monitoring for strategic planning. Dimensions supports these important mission needs with data, tools, and expertise.

Identify and target grant recipients and accurately analyze commercial opportunity

Use case

Dimensions is a powerful research discovery tool which leverages the world’s largest linked research information dataset.

Mapping innovation: Dimensions data reveals geopolymers’ rise in sustainable building blog post

Blog

Recent study in MDPI’s Sustainability journal utilizes scientometric analysis to map the interdisciplinary research on geopolymer composites, revealing key trends and insights.

Access valuable content

Sign up

Stay in the loop! Sign up here to get relevant Dimensions content delivered right to your inbox.

OntoChem: Make the most of all the internal and external data available to you

SciWalker Studio powers new metric to assess life sciences papers

Blog

Scientists commonly employ Impact Factor and H-index as the standard evaluative tools, in this blog we explore how recent research has revealed limitations to these metrics.

Comparing software tools for optical chemical structure recognition

Blog

The OntoChem R&D team reviewed modern OCSR tools, resulting with the review being published in Digital Discovery, from the Royal Society of Chemistry.

metaphacts: Decision Intelligence through Knowledge Democratization

How to create a knowledge graph application with metaphactory and Amazon Neptune

Blog

Amazon Neptune fully managed graph database service built for the cloud, that can store RDF Knowledge Graphs of 100’s of billions of triples.

How a semantic model can elevate your enterprise information architecture

Blog

What an ‘enterprise information architecture’ is and how it can support your enterprise with decision intelligence, knowledge democratization and enterprise-wide optimization.

Looking for more information or want a Demo? Submit your information and one of our team will follow up with you as soon as possible.

The post Innovation Roundtable 2024 appeared first on Digital Science.

Author’s note about identify-first language

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

The Rise of Participatory Research

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

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

Characterizing Autistic Contributor Representation in Autism Research Articles

Methodology

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

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

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

The Rise of Autistic Authorship

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

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

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

Top Cited Research Article among Autistic Lived Experience Authors:

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

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

Top Altmetric Score and Field Citation Ratio among Autistic Lived Experience Authors:

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

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

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

Broadening the Scope: How do Papers Characterize Autistic Contributions Beyond Authorship? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparing Autistic-Contributor Autism Research with all Clinical Autism Research

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

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

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

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

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

How does impact look compared to all autism research?

Data sourced: 25 September 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

Learning from Other Fields: Comparison to Chronic Illness and Mental Health Research Literature with Lived Experience Contributions

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

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

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

Implications and Recommendations

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

Recommendations:

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

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

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

Request a demo or quote

About the Author

Emily Alagha, Senior Director of Research Analytics & Support | Digital Science

Emily Alagha is a Senior Director of Research Analytics & Support at Digital Science, where she leverages AI-powered platforms like Dimensions to support data-driven strategies to optimize research funding and enhance research management practices. With a background in medical librarianship, she is passionate about health literacy and ensuring research is accessible to all. She is also a neurodivergent self-advocate committed to amplifying autistic voices and increasing autistic representation in research.

The post Embracing Lived Experience: A Data-Driven Look at Autistic Involvement in Autism Research appeared first on Digital Science.

Why understanding the nature of partnerships is crucial to knowledge transfer programs

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

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

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

Knowledge Transfer Partnerships

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

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

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

Jo Griffiths, Leeds Beckett University

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

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

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

Benefits

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

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

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

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

Case study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future REFerence

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

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

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