This analysis is intended as a starting point for understanding where FemTech is growing and where major gaps remain. Using Dimensions AI data, I analyzed grant funding, patent filings, and clinical trials from the past 10 years. I assigned results to broad women’s health categories using keyword matching in titles and abstracts. 

Some grants, patents, and trials may appear under multiple categories if they are relevant to more than one area (e.g., a menstruation tracking app could be tagged as relevant to fertility and PCOS management). As a result, category totals should not be summed together to avoid double-counting. Instead, the charts provide a relative comparison of activity across FemTech areas and show which topics receive more research, investment, and commercialization efforts. Additionally, while patents indicate where commercialization is happening, they do not guarantee market success or regulatory approval.

Where is FemTech Research Growing?

Fertility Innovation Leads Research and Commercialization

Over the past 10 years, global funding agencies such as NIH, the European Commission, and NIHR have awarded $1.06 billion in grants for FemTech-related research. The top-funded areas include:

• Fertility –  43.1% of total funding
• Pregnancy –  31.4% of total funding
• Breast cancer – 10.9% of total funding.

Notably, menopause remains an underfunded area, receiving just 0.55% of total research dollars. This pattern of underfunding in menopause research may reflect broader research biases in women’s health, which leads to non-reproductive aging conditions receiving less attention. Endometriosis and menopause remain starkly underrepresented, reinforcing the pattern of underinvestment in midlife women’s health.

Are We Seeing Innovation? (Patents & Clinical Trials Trends)

Patents Show Market Interest, But Only in Select Areas

While research funding drives exploration, patent filings can indicate where private sector innovation is happening. My analysis finds that like grant funding, FemTech patents are unevenly distributed across key areas of women’s health:

• Fertility – 48% of total patents. This reflects strong market demand, heavy private investment, and ongoing consumer interest in reproductive health solutions.
• Pregnancy – 32% of total patents, reinforcing continued industry attention on maternal health
• Breast cancer – 11.5% of total patents, indicating continued investment but less dominance compared to fertility and pregnancy-related innovations.

Clinical Trials Reveal an Innovation Gap

Clinical trials provide a window into what is actually being tested for real-world use, and the results show clear misalignments:

• Fertility – 41.8% of all clinical trials
• Pregnancy – 29.7% of clinical trials 
• Breast cancer 11% of clinical trials
• Sexual health is significantly under-tested, representing only 3.4% of trials, despite strong consumer interest in solutions for sexual wellness.

Bridging the Gap Between Research, Innovation, and Commercialization in FemTech

While research funding drives exploration, patent filings indicate where private sector innovation is happening. Our analysis finds that FemTech commercialization is highly concentrated, but there are some differences between innovation-heavy areas and those struggling to reach clinical validation.

• Fertility technology has a far higher ratio of patents to clinical trials than any other category (4.21 patents per trial). This patent volume  reflects strong market demand, heavy private investment, and rapid technological advancements in assisted reproduction. However, the gap between patents and trials suggests companies may be prioritizing direct-to-consumer models over clinical validation, or facing regulatory hurdles in testing fertility innovations.
• Pregnancy-related innovation has a balanced ratio (0.25 patents per trial), indicating steady research and commercialization efforts moving in parallel.
• Breast cancer technology follows a similar trend (0.24 patents per trial), showing consistent investment across both innovation and clinical validation.
• Menopause (0.18 patents per trial) and gynecological cancers (0.16 patents per trial) see even less commercialization, reinforcing concerns that midlife women’s health remains a lower priority for investment.
• Sexual health and contraception have some of the lowest patent-to-trial ratios (0.07 and 0.03, respectively) which may indicate that commercialization is still lagging behind research.
• Endometriosis has clinical trials but almost no patents, confirming that diagnostic and treatment innovation remains stagnant.

Implications:

• Are regulatory pathways slowing down fertility tech adoption?
• Are companies prioritizing patents in high-demand markets (like fertility) while ignoring other health needs?
• Should funding agencies reallocate resources toward under-commercialized areas like endometriosis, menopause, and contraception, or will demographic trends inevitably increase commercial investment in some of these areas?

Technology Trends in FemTech: AI, Wearables, and Digital Health

Beyond funding and commercialization trends, an analysis of patents and clinical trials reveals which technologies are shaping FemTech innovation. Three key areas dominate:

AI-Driven Diagnostics

Machine learning and AI are being integrated into fertility tracking, ovulation prediction, and personalized reproductive health solutions. Patents in AI-based reproductive health are on the rise, reflecting growing interest in automated health insights. Breast cancer detection AI is another expanding area, with startups and researchers developing algorithmic screening tools.

Wearable Devices for Women’s Health

FemTech wearables can range from cycle-tracking smart rings to pelvic floor training sensors and are emerging as a major category in innovation. Key areas of innovation include fertility tracking, pregnancy monitoring, and menopause symptom management. While patents for wearable tech are increasing, clinical trials remain limited, indicating that many of these products have not yet reached large-scale medical validation. 

Telemedicine & Digital Health

Telemedicine is playing an increasing role in FemTech commercialization, particularly in clinical research. Examples range from virtual genetic counseling, menopause support apps, and AI-powered health coaching for reproductive and sexual health.

Implications:

• AI-driven diagnostics and wearable devices are growing fast in patents but lagging in clinical trials, which may suggest regulatory or adoption challenges.
• Telemedicine is further along in implementation, likely due to faster regulatory pathways for software-based interventions compared to hardware or pharmaceuticals.

Regulatory, Privacy, and Access Challenges in FemTech

FemTech is advancing rapidly, but policy frameworks are not keeping pace. Many innovations in AI-driven diagnostics, wearable health devices, and digital therapeutics face fragmented regulatory approval pathways that differ by region.

Privacy Concerns are a key issue, as many FemTech solutions collect sensitive health data. This raises concerns about data ownership, consent, and third-party sharing. Access Disparities are also a concern. Low-income populations face significant barriers to accessing affordable, approved, and accessible FemTech solutions.

These issues have been explored in the broader mHealth research movement in recent years, and prior work in these areas may be useful for informing policy and regulatory issues in FemTech. Moving forward, policymakers, researchers, and industry leaders must work together to ensure that FemTech innovations are ethically developed, widely accessible, and properly regulated.

Conclusion & Call to Action

FemTech is at a high-visibility moment. Fertility solutions are flourishing, while other critical areas like menopause, sexual health, and non-hormonal contraception continue to be neglected. The imbalance in research funding, innovation, and clinical validation reflects both structural funding priorities and market incentives.

At the same time, women’s health funding in the U.S. is facing new uncertainties. It is clear that changes in public health funding priorities will impact the future of research and commercialization in the FemTech space as well as women’s health more broadly .

Ensuring sustained investment will be critical to keeping FemTech innovation moving forward. History has shown that fluctuations in funding can significantly impact the pace of innovation. As policymakers, researchers, and industry leaders navigate these changes, cross-sector collaboration will be key.

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 Tracking the FemTech Research Boom: What Data Tells Us About Innovation & Gaps appeared first on Digital Science.

Welcome to Digital Science. At the heart of our mission to create a future where a trusted, frictionless, collaborative research ecosystem drives progress for all is a team of dedicated leaders and advisors who bring a wealth of experience, vision, and innovation. Our Management Board drives our business with strategic insight and a passion for excellence, while our Advisory Board provides invaluable guidance and expertise to ensure we remain at the forefront of our industry.

Each team member plays a crucial role in shaping our company’s success, sharing a commitment to our core values of bravery, collaboration, curiosity, and community. Together, they bring decades of leadership experience across the research, academic, government, and publishing industries and sectors. We invite you to learn more about the people leading the way at Digital Science.

Management Board

Daniel Hook

Chief Executive Officer

• LinkedIn

Stephen Leicht

President

• LinkedIn

Mario Diwersy

Chief Technology Officer

• LinkedIn

Fedor Zeyer

Chief Financial Officer

• LinkedIn

Claire Fox

Chief People Officer

• LinkedIn

Alison Mitchell

Chief Strategy and Business Officer

• LinkedIn

Jackie Hunter

Board chair Biocortex, Brainomix and the Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst

Jackie Hunter has extensive experience of pharmaceutical research and drug development, having run a global R&D organization within GSK, and also has been CEO of an SME. She was Chief Executive of the BBSRC for the UK government and has worked extensively with both academic and industry partners. Jackie is an experienced NED and charity Trustee, and is currently chair of the boards of Brainomix Ltd, Bicortex Ltd and the Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst, and also sits on the board of AStar in Singapore and is chair of AStar’s Digital Health Accelerator Hub Evaluation Committee. She is a past chair of the Trustees of the Sainsbury lab at Norwich, UK, and a former board director of BenevolentAI.

Chonnettia Jones

President and Executive Director, Addgene

Chonnettia Jones is the President and Executive Director at Addgene, a life sciences repository dedicated to accelerating scientific discovery and innovation by providing scientists around the world with access to high-quality research materials. With over 20 years’ experience in the nonprofit sector, Chonnettia has held leadership roles in purpose-driven organizations in Canada, UK/Europe, and US, where she has made contributions to advancing science and health research. Her leadership in championing open science, responsible research assessment and equitable research is reflected in her participation on various international advisory boards in science, technology, and scholarly communications.

Linda O’Brien

Adjunct Professor, Griffith University, Australia and CEO of the Stawell Underground Physics Laboratory

Linda O’Brien is a highly experienced senior executive, board director and consultant who has successfully delivered operational, transformational and strategic initiatives within the academic and community sectors. With a background in education, research, information management, technology, leadership, management and governance, Professor O’Brien brings a unique breadth and depth of experience to her roles. Her passion is to unlock the power of data to create public value, in research and education and across government and the community sectors, driving innovation, productivity improvements and improved policy outcomes.

Hemai Parthasarathy

Formerly Head of Rapid Evaluation, Google X

Hemai Parthasarathy is a scientific leader who most recently directed the Rapid Evaluation team at Alphabet’s innovation lab, X (formerly Google [X]). Previously, as Scientific Director of The Thiel Foundation, she established Breakout Labs, a philanthropic program to support scientist-entrepreneurs in the creation of new businesses. Hemai was also a founding partner and CSO of Breakout Ventures, focusing on deep-technology investments.  Prior to her work with science-based startups, Hemai was a founding editor at PLOS and a North American editor for the international science magazine Nature. She holds a PhD in Brain and Cognitive Sciences from MIT.

Benoit Schillings

Chief Technology Officer, Google X

Benoit Schillings oversees a portfolio of early-stage project teams that dream up, prototype and de-risk X’s next generation of moonshots. Benoit’s team take out-there ideas for positive world-changing technologies from ‘what if?’ to early prototype. Originally from Belgium, Benoit has worked in Silicon Valley for over 30 years holding senior technical roles at Yahoo, Nokia and Be.Inc, and holds more than 40 U.S. and international patents related to his work in hardware and software technology. Benoit is the father of two wonderful daughters, and when he’s not working on moonshots he can be found on his roof, gazing at the beauty of the night sky through his homemade telescopes.

Joanne Sheppard

Advisor, Holtzbrinck Publishing Group

Joanne Sheppard has worked globally for more than 20 years in high-impact scientific communication and early-stage technology start ups. Currently, she is Advisor to the Holtzbrinck Group, a non-executive director of Scismic, and board observer of DeSci Labs. Previously she was non-executive director of LabGuru, Senior Vice President for Strategy and M&A for Science and Technology at Holtzbrinck, Vice President of Business Development for Cell Press, and Vice President of Editorial for Elsevier Science and Technology Books.

The post Management and Advisory 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.

The 2023 survey saw over 6,000 responses and the report that has now been published takes an in-depth look at the responses and purposefully takes a much more analytical approach than has been seen in previous years, unveiling unprecedented insights.

Five key takeaways from The State of Open Data 2023

Support is not making its way to those who need it

Over three-quarters of respondents had never received any support with making their data openly available. 

One size does not fit all

Variations in responses from different subject expertise and geographies highlight a need for a more nuanced approach to research data management support globally. 

Challenging stereotypes

Are later career academics really opposed to progress? The results of the 2023 survey indicate that career stage is not a significant factor in open data awareness or support levels. 

Credit is an ongoing issue

For eight years running, our survey has revealed a recurring concern among researchers: the perception that they don’t receive sufficient recognition for openly sharing their data. 

AI awareness hasn’t translated to action

For the first time, this year we asked survey respondents to indicate if they were using ChatGPT or similar AI tools for data collection, processing and metadata creation. 

Diving deeper into the data than ever before 

This year, we dive deeper into the data than ever before and look at the differing opinions of our respondents when we compare their regions, career stages, job titles and subject areas of expertise. 

Figshare founder and CEO Mark Hahnel said of this approach, “It feels like the right time to do this. Whilst a global funder push towards FAIR data has researchers globally moving in the same direction, it is important to recognize the subtleties in researchers’ behaviors based on variables in who they are and where they are.”

This year features extensive analysis of the survey results data and provides an in-depth and unique view of attitudes towards open data. 

This analysis provided some key insights; notably that researchers at all stages of their careers share similar enthusiasm for open data, are motivated by shared incentives and struggle to overcome the same obstacles. 

These results are encouraging and challenge the stereotype that more experienced academics are opposed to progress in the space and that those driving progress are primarily early career researchers. 

We were also able to look into the nuanced differences in responses from different regions and subject areas of expertise, illuminating areas for targeted outreach and support. These demographic variations also led us to issue a recommendation to the academic research community to look to understand the ‘state of open data’ in their specific setting.  

Benchmarking attitudes towards the application of AI 

In light of the intense focus on artificial intelligence (AI) and its application this year, for the first time, we decided to ask our survey respondents if they were using any AI tools for data collection, processing or metadata collection. 

The most common answer to all three questions was,“I’m aware of these tools but haven’t considered it.”

Although the results don’t yet tell a story, we’ve taken an important step in benchmarking how researchers are currently using AI in the data-sharing process. Within our report, we hear from Niki Scaplehorn and Henning Schoenenberger from Springer Nature in their piece ‘AI and open science: the start of a beautiful relationship?’ as they share some thoughts on what the future could hold for research data and open science more generally in the age of AI. 

We are looking forward to evaluating the longitudinal response trends for this survey question in years to come as the fast-moving space of AI and its applications to various aspects of the research lifecycle accelerate farther ahead. 

Recommendations for the road ahead 

In our report, we have shared some recommendations that take the findings of our more analytical investigation and use them to inform action points for various stakeholders in the community. This is an exciting step for The State of Open Data, as we more explicitly encourage real-world action from the academic community when it comes to data-sharing and open data. 

Understanding the state of open data in our specific settings: Owing to the variations in responses from different geographies and areas of expertise, we’re encouraging the academic community to investigate the ‘state of open data’ in their specific research setting, to inform tailored and targeted support. 

Credit where credit’s due: For eight years running, our respondents have repeatedly reported that they don’t feel researchers get sufficient credit for sharing their data. Our recommendation asks stakeholders to consider innovative approaches that encourage data re-use and ultimately greater recognition. 

Help and guidance for the greater good: The same technical challenges and concerns that pose a barrier to data sharing transcend different software and disciplines. Our recommendation suggests that support should move beyond specific platform help and instead tackle the bigger questions of open data and open science practices. 

Making outreach inclusive: Through our investigation of the 2023 survey results, we saw that the stage of an academic’s career was not a significant factor in determining attitudes towards open data and we saw consensus between early career researchers and more established academics. Those looking to engage research communities should be inclusive and deliberate with their outreach, engaging those who have not yet published their first paper as well as those who first published over 30 years ago. 

What’s next for The State of Open Data?  

The State of Open Data 2023 report is a deliberate change from our usual format; usually, our report has contributed pieces authored by open data stakeholders around the globe. This year, we’ve changed our approach and we are beginning with the publication of this first report, which looks at the survey data through a closer lens than before. We’ve compared different subsets of the data in a way we haven’t before, in an effort to provide more insights and actionable data for the community.

In early 2024, we’ll be releasing a follow-up report, with a selection of contributed pieces from global stakeholders, reflecting on the survey results in their context. Using the results showcased in this first report as a basis, it’s our hope that this follow-up report will apply different contexts to these initial findings and bring new insights and ideas. 

In the meantime, we’re hosting two webinars to celebrate the launch of our first report and share the key takeaways. In our first session, The State of Open Data 2023: The Headlines, we’ll be sharing a TL;DR summary of the full report; our second session, The State of Open Data 2023: In Conversation, will convene a panel of global experts to discuss the survey results. 

You can sign up for both sessions here: 

The State of Open Data 2023: The Headlines

The State of Open Data 2023: In Conversation

About the Author

Laura Day, Marketing Director | Figshare

Laura is the Marketing Director at Figshare, part of Digital Science. Before joining Digital Science, Laura worked in scholarly publishing, focusing on open access journal marketing and transformative agreements. In her current role, Laura focuses on marketing campaigns and outreach for Figshare. She is passionate about open science and is excited by the potential it has to advance knowledge sharing by enabling academic research communities to reach new and diverse audiences.

The post The State of Open Data 2023: A more analytical approach provides unparalleled insights appeared first on Digital Science.

How old is Open Access? In some ways it is as old as research itself, as at least some results have always been shared publicly. However, since the first journals were published in 1665, accessibility has been an issue, with distribution of paper journals limiting potential readership. When the internet came along, it lowered the barriers to access considerably and opened up the pathway towards Open Access. But that process has been a gradual one.

As a tutor for ALPSP and course leader for some of its industry training modules, I have to be wary of approaching topics such as Open Access. Not because it is especially contentious or difficult, but because as someone who has been involved in scholarly communications for over 20 years, it still feels relatively ‘new’ to me, whereas for most attendees it is simply part of the modern furniture of publishing.

However, as Churchill once said, the longer you can look back, the farther you can look forward, so this year’s OA Week seems as good a time as any to review how its development has progressed over the years. Luckily, in Dimensions we have a tool which can look at millions of articles, both OA and closed access, published over the last quarter of a century.

Back story

Pointing to a specific time to say ‘this is when OA started’ is difficult, as experiments with OA publishing arrived with the internet in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Perhaps the first rallying cry in support of OA came in 1994 when Stevan Harnad published his Subversive Proposal. However, in 1998 several things happened which started to shape the way OA would develop, including the setting up of a number of support networks for authors to advise how to follow the OA path, as well as the founding of the Public Knowledge Project (PKP). New tools and services introduced then started to re-engineer how academic publishing operated, which were only amplified by the global adoption of the internet.

Such developments were followed in subsequent years by major declarations from academics and institutions in support of OA, mainly from European cities starting with ‘B’ – both Budapest and Berlin were the basis for such declarations that propelled Open Access forward and firmly onto the agendas of all stakeholders. Some countries and academic cultures adopted OA principles quickly such as Brazil, however it wasn’t until the 2010s that we started to see significant policy changes in Global North countries such as the US and the UK. 

These OA policies have now not only become commonplace, but have strengthened with initiatives like Plan_S in Europe and the OSTP (or Nelson) Memo in the US driving forward the transition towards fuller OA. It feels like the rate of change has increased in the last few years, but is this true and what does the picture look like globally?

Ch-ch-ch-changes

As we can see in the chart below using Dimensions, growth in OA research article publications has been relatively steady over the last 25 years, with a steeper rise in recent years followed by a shallower rise in 2022. This can perhaps be attributed in part to the introduction of Plan_S in 2018 and the introduction of funder mandates, but also the impact of the Covid-19 epidemic which drove OA publications upwards in 2020 and 2021, not least through the avenue of OA preprints.

However, appearances can be deceptive. While the chart may seem to plot a steady increase, the 12-fold rise over 25 years is significantly faster than the four-fold rise seen from all research articles, with all OA articles now making up well over half of all articles.

Looking more closely at the type of OA article recorded on Dimensions, if we look just at Gold OA research articles over time (ie. those published in journals, typically after payment of an article processing charge (APC)), we see a similar development, albeit with a slower take off and steeper rise in recent times.

However, if we look at Green OA research articles made available over the same period, we see a much more complex development, with higher rates of adoption in the early years of OA following a shallower trajectory before a huge spike in 2020, driven by the aforementioned pandemic. 

We can see the change more markedly below if we look at all publications (as opposed to just research articles) in more recent years, with Green and Gold running neck-and-neck until they diverged over the last decade or so. For many early proponents of Green Open Access who were opposed to the high profit margins enjoyed by many, this highlights how Green OA has failed in comparison to Gold Open Access. 

Looking ahead

What do these data tell us about the next 25 years? Perhaps the key takeaway is that shifts in behaviour of authors can be caused by concerted policymaking. Indeed, even the commitment to future mandates can be a catalyst for change as publishers prepare the groundwork quickly for upcoming changes. However, the biggest single shift towards OA happened during something wholly unforeseen (the pandemic), and as geopolitics is in its most volatile state in the whole 25 year period, maybe the biggest changes in OA are just round the corner. 

Request a demo or quote

About the Author

Simon Linacre, Head of Content, Brand & Press | Digital Science

Simon has 20 years’ experience in scholarly communications. He has lectured and published on the topics of bibliometrics, publication ethics and research impact, and has recently authored a book on predatory publishing. Simon is also a COPE Trustee and ALPSP tutor, and holds Masters degrees in Philosophy and International Business.

The post From subversive to the new normal: 25 years of Open Access appeared first on Digital Science.

Path to Open

Path to Open, a new open access pilot for book publications in the humanities and social sciences, has launched its collection this month, with 100 titles covering 36 disciplines from more than 30 university presses. This represents a major and much-needed step forward for Open Access publishing in general, and for the humanities specifically.

The pilot began in January as a collaboration among university presses, libraries, and scholars. It has emerged at a moment when students, administrators, and political leaders in the United States openly doubt the value and relevance of the humanities.¹ Their questions stem at least in part from a widespread misunderstanding of the term “humanities”, the disciplines it includes, and the inquiries posed by its scholars.

Such misunderstandings are perhaps not surprising. Scholarly books, often referred to as monographs, have served for decades as the primary mode for sharing research findings in the humanities but are currently distributed in ways that privilege a narrow audience.²

University presses – long-time champions and producers of monographs – have lost crucial institutional support, leaving many in difficult financial circumstances. The resulting high prices for monographs often exclude scholars, students, and others without affiliation at well-funded research libraries, and the problems multiply for those outside the established book distribution networks of North America and Western Europe.

Compared with STEM disciplines, the humanities receive little public funding for research and publication, making the move to open access much more challenging.

A commitment to finding new ways of sharing monographs drives the development of Path to Open. As Charles Watkinson and Melissa Pitts have noted, academic stakeholders “have long seen the value in investing significant resources to sustain science infrastructures that contribute to a common good. It is essential to their mission that they collaborate and invest with that same care in the crucial infrastructure for humanities research embodied by the network of university presses”.

Path to Open seeks to create an infrastructure that allows more publishers – especially small and mid-sized university presses – to experiment with open access distribution while also boosting the circulation of research from a community of diverse humanities scholars. The initiative is distinctive among open access models because, as John Sherer explains, it proposes a “compromise between the legacy model of university press publishing and a fully funded OA model”.

Path to Open operates as a library subscription – administered exclusively by JSTOR – that guarantees payments of at least US$5,000 per title to participating publishers, to help offset potential losses in digital sales. With the launch of the online collection this month, presses also have the option to sell print editions of all books, as well as direct-to-consumer e-books.

A sliding scale for subscription costs provides more equitable access to libraries of varying sizes and budgets, and more than 60 libraries have joined to date, including members of the Big Ten Academic Alliance. The initial 100 titles transition to full open access by 2026, and new titles will be added in each of the following three pilot years to reach an expected total of 1,000 open access books by 2029.

The model aims to reduce financial risk for presses while also acknowledging lingering hesitation about open access publication within the humanities community. As John Sherer finds, many authors fear that “an OA monograph would be viewed less favorably than a traditional print monograph would in the tenure and promotion review process”.

Monographs take years to produce, and they function quite differently from journal articles in the scholarly ecosystem. Many of these books maintain their relevance for years, even decades, past the original publication date. Over the life of the pilot, JSTOR will track various usage metrics for all titles in the collection both before and after the transition to open access.

The partnership with JSTOR provides a unique opportunity to gather data in a controlled environment, with hopes of gaining much-needed insights into the behavior of readers, the effect of open access on print sales, and the timing of peak impact for monographs in various disciplines. Understanding such issues is key to strengthening the vital infrastructure that supports humanities research and to ensure its place alongside open STEM scholarship.

The American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) has committed to providing a robust and transparent structure for community engagement with Path to Open. In consultation with the Educopia Institute, ACLS is developing a forum to encourage dialogue among key stakeholders, including publishers, libraries, scholars, and academic administrators. Inviting scholars into these conversations is critical for a shared understanding of how open access affects humanistic disciplines, institutions of higher education, students, and individual academic careers.

Our hope at ACLS is that an inclusive dialogue about Path to Open will generate greater understanding of the stakes for various constituents within the humanities community, and guide decisions for the future of scholarly publishing in sustainable and equitable ways.

¹ Nathan Heller, “The End of the English Major,” The New Yorker, February 27, 2023.

² See also Michael A. Elliott, “The Future of the Monograph in the Digital Era,” The Journal of Electronic Publishing 18, no. 4 (fall 2015).

About the Author

Sarah McKee, Project Manager, Publishing Initiatives | American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS)

As Project Manager for Publishing Initiatives, Sarah McKee works to support a healthy ecosystem for the creation and dissemination of humanistic scholarship across disciplines and institutions. She previously administered Digital Publishing in the Humanities, sponsored by the Mellon Foundation and based at Emory University’s Fox Center for Humanistic Inquiry, and served as managing editor of the born-digital New Georgia Encyclopedia at the University of Georgia Press. She is an advisory board member for the Next Generation Library Project and is a co-author of the report Multimodal Digital Monographs: Content, Collaboration, Community (2022).

The post New path opens up support for humanities in OA publishing appeared first on Digital Science.

To celebrate the world of books, colleagues at Digital Science have shared their recommendations and reviews of books that have interested and inspired them over summer.

Currently reading The Earth Transformed by Peter Frankopan, which takes a sweeping look at the ways humanity and climate change have impacted each other (leading to development and demise) over time.

—Heather Luciano

Review: Freedom to Think: Protecting a Fundamental Human Right in the Digital Age by Susie Alegre.

Strolling through St Pancras Station, London waiting on my train, I popped into a bookshop looking for a specific title. Unsurprisingly, they didn’t have the obscure book I wanted, so I perused a bit more. Two addictions consume my life: tea and books. If I go into either type of store, I never walk out empty handed. I left with Freedom to Think.

“Human rights law guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, belief and opinion….” This book lays out the laws to the educated reader giving us the words to understand and speak about our most sacred freedom.

Alegre illuminates the art of mind control by what is and is not done to people. Like learning to paint – you must think as much about what is there as what is not – the negative space created to poignantly focus the observer. Through human-developed algorithms and strategize investments with little legal oversight, humanity is threatened as much by what we see as what we are excluded from seeing.

“Freedom of thought is about the space to think before you share.” We need that space. But no one will give it to us; it must be claimed for ourselves.

Give this book a think.

—Leslie McIntosh

If you’re looking for creepy but not gruesome, I recommend T. Kingfisher’s The Hollow Places. I also just finished her book A House with Good Bones but didn’t find it as hauntingly bizarre.

—Sara Gonzalez

I read Munroe Bergdorf’s autobiography, Transitional. Bergdorf is one of the very few transgender PoC fashion models (among many other things she does). She has been the campaign face for L’Oreal (before they sacked her for political posts on Instagram in 2017). The book is less about being transgender and more about what she learned on her journey. About racism, equality, being in the spotlight of public attention and finally purpose in life: “Nowhere feels like home when it’s you that you’re running from.”

—Sasha Gӧbbels

Review: The Book Eaters by Sunyi Dean.

I started a book club with other East Asian women to explore Asian history and Asian authors. My favorite this year is The Book Eaters by Sunyi Dean, who is a biracial autistic woman. It features Devon, a member of a secretive humanoid species/society that subsists on physically consuming books, while retaining the knowledge within. However, she gives birth to a son who has a mutation that makes him prefer human brains instead of books. We follow her struggle to help and protect him. The result is a riveting mashup of science fiction, fantasy, horror with an undercurrent of Margaret Atwood.

—Jamie Liu

Review: Magpie Murders by Anthony Horowitz.

Great book for puzzle and mystery fans, this is a compelling story within a story. An editor receives a famous author’s latest manuscript and she expects all will be the same as his previous award winning books. But all is not the same in the book, nor in her life, after receiving the manuscript minus the last chapter. What happened to the last chapter? The book weaves in and out of the first story and the ‘book within the book’, and although the story in the manuscript is a traditional British Manor Murder Mystery, reminiscent of Agatha Christie and Sherlock Holmes, the detective Atticus Pünd solves mysteries in his own unique way.

This is a clever book with great twists and a beautiful voice. Best of all, the ending is completely unexpected. Great fun.

—Carola Blackwood

Currently reading Braiding Sweetgrass. Beautifully written nonfiction which explores the intersections of Indigenous knowledge and plant science. Lots of food for thought for those interested in the culture of science!

Also recommend The Priory of the Orange Tree if you like things with dragons.

—Emily Alagha

I recently finished bell hooks’ The Will to Change, which I recommend to anybody wanting a more complete critical approach to understanding patriarchy and its effects. That it is a book written with love and care, and is in hooks’ unique and inviting colloquial style, makes her argument all the more impactful: though men have clear rewards in patriarchy, we are all ultimately its victims and must attend to the role we all play in perpetuating and sustaining patriarchal culture.

—Adrien De Sutter

Review: The Colony by Audrey Magee.

I was fascinated by the premise of this book, which on the one hand was a slightly odd tale of two outsiders spending the summer on a remote Irish island, but was also intertwined with the Troubles in Northern Ireland in the 1970s as well as offering an allegory of the impact of colonial rule. Not only does the author create fascinating narratives on all these levels, she also manages to build tension through a slow burn of a plot, portraying very real characters as well as a wicked dark humour. All this combined to offer a very rich reading experience with a heartbreaking ending to boot. Very highly recommended.

—Simon Linacre

Currently in the middle of two books – first is Understanding Privacy by Heather Burns. I’m “In the middle of” because the dead tree edition hasn’t arrived yet, but can’t help but read ahead in the ePub. Picked this up ‘cos I’ve been following Heather’s engaging posts on the birdsite. Nearly finished The Malevolent Seven by Sebastien de Castell ‘cos I’m a sucker for catchy titles – it’s (absolutely not!) beardy wizard fantasy stuff, but needed something to while away the hours as a recent guest at the Royal Infirmary. A fun read!

—Jamie MacIsaac

Review: Lark Ascending by Silas House.

In Lark Ascending, Silas House strikes a poignant balance between hope and grief over the state of the world (present and future). It’s a dystopian tale but not a sci-fi one, featuring a heartbreaking queer love story and one of the best dog characters ever written. Left me with lots of feelings and lots to think about – as have House’s other novels. I‘ve been reading a lot of what might loosely fall into the genre of ‘climate fiction’ over the past few years, and this one really stands out.

—Lisa Curtin

On my list (for a very summer-fiction entry) is the recently published Somebody’s Fool by Richard Russo.

—Tyler Ruse

Having also watched (and survived) Oppenheimer, Eve of Destruction is on my list. Might be grim summer reading though!

—Niall Cunniffe

For a lighter read this summer I went with The Geography of Bliss by Eric Weiner. A great book for the beach or downtime during the summer.

—Shannon Davis

The post What are YOU reading? Top recommendations and reviews from Digital Science appeared first on Digital Science.

For many of us, prosecco seems to have become the sine qua non of any gathering, combining as it does the popping cork, light fizz and often considerable price benefit compared to champagne. Celebrated on 13 August each year, it offers a chance for prosecco producers to market their wines, and for the rest of us to, well, enjoy them!

But aside from the marketing fluff, what’s going on academically with prosecco? Dimensions and Altmetric – as well as being fantastically powerful tools to aid deep investigation of research topics – can also offer insight into almost any field of study. So, what can we glean from recent studies on prosecco?

In Figure 1, we can see that the number of articles that mention ‘prosecco’ has steadily grown in the last decade, with a pronounced increase in 2021. However, this seemed to tail off in 2022, so perhaps interest in the topic has started to wane. This almost exactly mirrors global sales of prosecco and Italian wine in general, which have tailed off in 2022 after performing well during the pandemic.

However, if we break it down by the number of articles published by Sustainable Development Goals – one of the most useful ways of delineating research on Dimensions – we can see that while there has been a drop in research related to Good Health and Well Being (SDG #3) and Life on Land (#15), there has been a marked increase in research on prosecco related to SDG #13, namely Climate Action. This perhaps reflects overall increased focus in this topic, particularly when related to food production where climate change is impacting on vines and crops, and any ability to meet increased demands.

Certainly the reporting on prosecco-related research is maintaining its upwards trajectory, as we can see from Figure 3, which shows a steady increase in citations of research in this area. As there is a lag between citations and publications, we may see this drop away in future if the decline in research on prosecco remains on a downward trend.

When we look at the influence of the research outside academia, we may have expected a similar continual rise, however data from Altmetric shows if anything a steeper decline than we saw in research output. This could be explained in part by the much shorter lead time that digital influence exhibits compared to citations, but it could also be a strong indicator that prosecco research has had its place in the sun, and academic interest has gone rather flat.

Request a demo or quote

About the Author

Simon Linacre, Head of Content, Brand & Press | Digital Science

Simon has 20 years’ experience in scholarly communications. He has lectured and published on the topics of bibliometrics, publication ethics and research impact, and has recently authored a book on predatory publishing. Simon is also a COPE Trustee and ALPSP tutor, and holds Masters degrees in Philosophy and International Business.

The post Has Prosecco research lost its fizz? appeared first on Digital Science.

The Digital Science team is getting ready to head off to San Francisco for the annual Science Foo Camp. This is a remarkable gathering of scientists, thinkers, technologists, creators and communicators, who come together over three days in mid-July.

‘Sci Foo’, as it’s affectionately known, is unlike any other science conference. Hosted by ‘X’ (formerly “Google X”), it is an ‘unconference’ with no fixed agenda, and is co-organized by Google, O’Reilly Media, Digital Science and Nature.

Since the first event in 2006, Sci Foo has aimed to do things differently – 18 years later it retains that original spirit and continues to attract some of the most prolific players on the world stage. Indeed, the British astrophysicist Lord Martin Rees has called Sci Foo the ‘Woodstock of the Mind’.

Forging an environment of openness and collaboration, attendees are encouraged to connect and share ideas with those around them. The schedule includes the always popular lightning talks but discourages keynotes and corporate overviews – and is dominated by unconference sessions that are proposed and organised by the attendees themselves. This format allows for unparalleled diversity of disciplines and thinking, with a rich seam of discussion, debate and insights running through the event. Conversations are encouraged to continue over mealtimes and into the evening.

As one of the organizers, Digital Science is especially excited for Sci Foo 2023. With around 250 attendees, we have also provided travel support to a number of early-career scientists from South Africa, Ecuador, Brunei and other countries and we are looking forward to the energy they will bring to what promises to be a fantastic Sci Foo.

We would also like to thank our co-organizers including  Tim O’Reilly and Marsee Henon from O’Reilly Media; Raiya Kind and Laurie Wu from Google; Magdalena Skipper of Springer Nature; and Sci Foo veteran Cat Allman, as well as the many volunteers from across all these organisations – it would not be possible without them. 

If you want to know more about Sci Foo 2023 including who’s there and what’s trending, please look out for online chat about the event via the official hashtag #SciFoo and discussion on Twitter and LinkedIn from the Digital Science team.

About the Author

Amarjit Myers, Head of Strategic Events | Digital Science

The post Heading to Sci Foo! appeared first on Digital Science.

How will Threads square up to Twitter in the social media arena? Do academics need another platform to disseminate their research?

When Facebook’s parent company Meta announced it was launching its own microblogging rival to Twitter, it felt inevitable but also sent a shudder down the spine of many people living in my part of the world. Whilst Threads might seem like a suitable, if not cliched name for the platform, given Twitter’s use of threaded updates, it also conjures up dystopian images. Firstly as those of a certain age will remember, Threads was a British-Australian BBC produced TV film that depicted a fictional nuclear war, at a time when this felt like a real possibility. It was set in Sheffield, near to where I grew up and currently work. Whilst the newest social media kid on the block is unlikely to result in that kind of devastation, it does appear to be spurred on by an increasingly public spat between the two tech giants Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. And at first glance on launch day, Threads appears remarkably similar to its established rival in terms of functionality, although there is no Direct Message function. In addition, it does not have a desktop version, which for some might seem progressive, but for professionals it implies the whole thing has been rushed. 

What lies ahead for Threads?

The latest addition to the researcher’s communications toolkit is unlikely to gain large numbers of followers from academia overnight. When Musk took over Twitter last year many from the academic community saw it as the final straw due to the platform’s increasingly toxic environment. Mastodon was one of the winners from the exodus with an estimated 200,000 new users in those first few days. The number jumped to over two million new subscribers in the following weeks. I was one of them and like many reminisced as Mastodon felt very much like Twitter a decade earlier, fresher, friendlier and more focused. Yet it did not have the critical mass due to the siloed nature of Mastodon’s servers, known as Instances. Despite the Twitter backlash it was much harder for organisations to make the switch and leave behind carefully constructed audiences. Also, Twitter was widely acknowledged as the number one communications tool for academics, largely due to its ease of use (it is easy to use, harder to use it well), but also because the institutions, media, funders and public were all on there. The initial weeks after Musk’s takeover I found myself juggling both platforms, initially using cross-posting tools until Musk intervened to turn off access to helpful independent platforms that allowed that kind of functionality. Twitter’s changes in policy and direction also led me to use LinkedIn a bit more, where I have seen increased activity across my network, whilst also endeavouring to engage in specialist groups more.  

Where Threads might be different

Twitter is a tool in isolation, it has no associated social media platforms to lean on to for leverage. Threads is different, in that it will rely heavily on its social media siblings Facebook and Instagram to help with the launch. Their combined user base far outstrips that of Twitter, the question will be whether fans of those two platforms will adopt it and how well will they work as a suite of tools. For it to be a useful academic tool it needs the public, the organisations, publishers, funders and the public on board. Where it is likely to be different from Twitter is how it is openly controlled by the owners. Twitter is seen by many as Musk’s plaything which he uses to flirt with conspiracy and controversy. Whilst Facebook, also collectively guilty of various internet misdemeanours, does not have a large personality publicly shaping the platform on the fly. Having a major tech company behind you is no guarantee that your new platform will take off. One only has to look at Google’s various attempts and subsequent failures with their forays into social media. On a personal level, as someone who had given up Instagram, it was annoying that I had to revive my Instagram credentials to sign up for a Threads account. This in itself may be a major barrier to many new users, especially as you are stuck using your Instagram account name by default. This is problematic if you have a personal identity (where you use a fictitious name) and want your academic Threads profile to have your real name. As an aside, it could mean ultimately Instagram gains millions of new users as a by-product, whether they engage is another thing. Whilst its launch has been delayed in the EU, which hardly helps connecting academics together. 

What does this mean for academia?

For those academics communicating their research it means another platform to consider. This in itself is problematic, as with too much choice the easiest option is to just ignore them all or stick with what you know. Communicating one’s research is not only a good thing to do, it is increasingly regarded as an important part of the research lifecycle. It can help increase citations, form collaborations, generate impact and project your work to those who may not be aware of it but find it beneficial. The demands on academics’ time and attention means there is little or no room to explore new platforms. Not only are there a plethora of general and specialist social media platforms, but there are also other mediums to consider. Blogging, podcasts, videos, animations and discussion forums provide valuable ways to reach out to different audiences. Academics do not have the time to critically appraise and  learn this growing suite of technologies, which is something I try to do, which is far from easy. Hence why so many researchers and aligned professionals either pay to learn about which tools to use properly, or outsource the work altogether to external consultants. 

Facebook is the number one social media platform but one that the academic community has never truly taken advantage of. To a large extent, this is a shame as it is global, has a decent demographic spread between young and middle-aged adults, and has good functionality, especially in relation to groups and pages. It is used by academics and groups, in particular for reaching groups and communities or by targeted adverts. However, on an individual level it has struggled to strike a balance between professional and personal identities. Twitter is much easier to navigate between multiple accounts and networks. So if academics can look beyond that and see Threads as a whole new platform it may be useful. No doubt whatever happens, it will highlight even more tensions between Musk and Zuckerberg, how much of it is real or for show, nobody knows. Nor can anyone predict what Musk will do as a result, some have long predicted Twitter’s demise and there is a possibility that one of the contenders could knock the other one out, in the ring or on the web.  

About the Author

Andy Tattersall

Andy Tattersall is an Information Specialist at The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) and writes, teaches and gives talks about digital academia, technology, scholarly communications, open research, web and information science, apps, altmetrics, and social media. In particular, their applications for research, teaching, learning, knowledge management and collaboration. Andy received a Senate Award from The University of Sheffield for his pioneering work on MOOCs in 2013 and is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. He is also Chair for the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals – Multi Media and Information Technology Committee. Andy was listed as one of Jisc’s Top Ten Social Media Superstars for 2017 in Higher Education. He has edited a book on altmetrics for Facet Publishing which is aimed at researchers and librarians.

The post Will researchers try new Threads? appeared first on Digital Science.