Institutions can help responsible research practice thrive by supporting their researchers and providing the right conditions. In a special blog series, we draw on interviews with institutional research integrity experts from various regions to explore how integrity is experienced in practice, and what it takes to sustain it across a fragmented research landscape. In this final blog, we explore how the commitment of leadership and systemic institutional support can create and sustain a culture of research integrity.

In the previous blogs in this series on institutional research integrity, we first explored the landscape of integrity to understand the context in which institutions are working today to uphold and advance integrity. In the second blog, we focused on the gap between what training teaches and what incentives reward and considered how institutions can contribute to minimising this gap.

In this blog, we investigate the role of leadership commitment and support networks throughout institutions in nurturing a positive integrity culture. For responsible research practice to thrive, institutions need multi-layered support systems that cover policy, leadership, local guidance, and lifecycle support.

Leadership sets the tone and policies that define expectations around research integrity. This is in turn echoed through the institution through embedded support networks that give researchers contextual, discipline-specific guidance. These local integrity-champions model practical decisions and practices in labs and research sites, but they also support integrity offices with disciplinary knowledge when integrity cases arise.

As with the first two blogs in the series, we draw here on our conversations with Jonas Åkerman, Research Integrity and Ethics Coordinator, Ethics Support Function at Stockholm University, Sweden, Daniel Barr, Principal Research Integrity Advisor at RMIT University, Australia, Rod Bates, Former Research Integrity Officer at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, and Lauran Qualkenbush, Senior Director for Research Integrity and Training and Research Integrity Officer at Northwestern University, United States and founding member of the Association of Research Integrity Officers.

“Understanding what's happening in research and how researchers do research enables us to support integrity and to engender a culture of responsible ethical research.” - Daniel Barr, Principal Research Integrity Advisor at RMIT University, Australia

Visible leadership in support of integrity makes a difference

Leadership commitment is not just a slogan. This commitment means that institutional integrity work is properly resourced, visible and valued, and able to influence research practice. For the creation of a good institutional integrity culture, the willingness of “leadership at the executive level to think about research integrity and ethics, but also then support it in real terms, is very important,” according to Daniel Barr.

These “real terms” in which leadership can support research integrity can range from staffing and securing integrity roles, treating data stewardship as infrastructure rather than an afterthought, and sustaining investment in research support services like repositories, licensing guidance, and trainings. High-level integrity expectations translate into day-to-day practice when leadership commits to integrity through strategy, policies, and sustained institutional support.

“Culture comes from the top down,” says Lauran Qualkenbush, and there are “many layers to the culture.” Leadership sets the tone and policies, while support networks embedded across the institution and in different settings turn those signals into day-to-day decisions in departments, labs, and project teams.

Embedded support networks: Integrity guidance where research happens

Most researchers, Jonas Åkerman observes, are aware of integrity issues and consider them, but “they need guidance and help, not just interpreting the rules individually, but also finding a good balance and managing the complexity of the whole.” By offering guidance and practical assistance, embedded support networks can help researchers effectively handle integrity issues throughout their work.

Centralised integrity offices can find it challenging to reach every discipline or lab culture alone, when they are themselves external to those everyday research practices. The challenge of translating integrity training and institutional policies into research practices and culture is already substantial. Taking this translation a step further requires having integrity champions acting from within.

Research integrity advisors that “champion these conversations in their local schools or areas,” as Daniel Barr explains, bring integrity into everyday practice and establish the conditions for it to be upheld. Integrity champions that are “locally” embedded where research is conducted complement training and policies and help translate institutional and leadership commitment to integrity.

The importance of discipline-specific support in addressing research integrity concerns

Beyond modelling integrity-positive practices to their peers, these local supporters also help integrity officers with domain knowledge to complement their general expertise about integrity. This could be required when institutional integrity specialists address an integrity concern.

Rod Bates explains that receiving assistance from disciplinary experts when addressing integrity issues is important. The collaboration of these experts is based on the general understanding throughout the institution that “integrity is important.”

Having distributed networks that support research integrity throughout the institution creates a culture of responsible research practice that upholds integrity. These disciplinary integrity champions offer researchers discipline-specific guidance and also support the institutional integrity office with their topical expert input, as needed to address integrity concerns. 

In this environment, there are more chances to identify and address confusion, conflict, or poor practice in early stages, as well as the commitment to solving issues when they surface in later stages. These support networks extend the reach, credibility, and responsiveness of the central integrity office and the commitment of the leadership throughout the institution.

Institutions in support of a research integrity culture

Institutions shape research integrity culture by what they resource, what they reward, and what they make practical. An integrity culture hinges on the accumulated effect of leadership commitment and embedded support.

In this blog series, we explored the integrity challenges of the complex landscape of modern research. We learned how everyday pressures and misaligned incentives can pull researchers away from responsible practice. And we recognised how institutions can create and nurture a culture in which research integrity thrives. Working in concert with other players across the research ecosystem, institutions make research integrity a lived reality, not just an ideal.

Related content

• Creating an institutional research integrity culture: It takes more than training
• Institutional perspectives on strengthening research integrity through collaboration
• Emerging librarian roles in supporting ethical and rigorous scholarship
• Research integrity in the age of open access and AI: The view from France
• Navigating research integrity in the age of AI

Don't miss the latest news & blogs, subscribe to The Link Alerts!

A new Springer Nature white paper on the impact of China’s gold open access (OA) articles explores how publishing openly can help research travel further. This blog offers practical insights into how openness, collaboration, and publishing choices can broaden the visibility and use of your work.

The white paper 'Open for impact: China’s gold open access boosting global innovation and supporting the Global South’ analyses China’s rapid growth in gold OA publishing and examines how this research is being cited, downloaded, and used internationally, with a particular focus on its impact in the Global South.  

The findings point to the role OA can play in supporting wider readership and citation by making research immediately available. They further underline how international collaboration can also support the reach and impact of open research. Openness, collaboration, and publishing choices can all influence how far research travels.

How open access can help your research travel further

The volume and impact of articles published gold OA by authors from China has risen substantially in recent years. The two-year citations of these articles (citations received within two years of publication) rose from 1.8 million for OA articles published in 2020 to 2.8 million for those published in 2022, an increase of 55%. But where these citations come from is just as telling as how many citations these articles attract.

Nearly 40% of citations to gold OA articles published by authors from China in 2022 came from publications with no authors in China. In other words, a substantial share of the research citing these articles was produced entirely outside China, indicating that the work is being used beyond the domestic research community of the original authors. For researchers more broadly, this shows how OA can help research become more visible to readers outside their immediate institution, country, or existing networks of its authors.

Increasing the visibility of research beyond academia with gold open access

Publishing OA can also make your research more visible to audiences beyond academia, including policymakers, practitioners, innovators, and the wider public. Indeed, the white paper shows that China’s gold OA articles are attracting substantial Altmetric attention, which tracks mentions in news coverage, policy documents, patents, social media, and other online sources.

China’s gold OA articles published in 2022 achieved a combined Altmetric Score of 703,000, increasing by 26% compared to 2020. Articles published in 2024 had already reached 510,000 despite having had less time to accumulate attention.

“OA helps make research accessible; collaboration can strengthen its relevance, networks, and potential readership across regions.”

Removing barriers to make your research accessible to audiences worldwide

Access is a precondition for impact. No matter how relevant a piece of research is, readers cannot use and build on it if they cannot easily access it. When you publish your research gold OA, you remove that access barrier by making the final published article immediately available online. It is then easier for readers in regions with access barriers to find, read, and build on your research.

This access point is reflected in one of the clearest patterns observed in the white paper: the difference between the use of OA and non-OA articles in the Global South. In Springer Nature hybrid journals that published more than 10 OA articles from China between 2020 and 2022, OA articles received 5.2 citations from the Global South per article, compared with 2.7 for non-OA articles, meaning 92% more citations for OA. These OA articles also received more than 4.8 times as many downloads per article in the Global South.

Collaboration can amplify the effects of openness and extend the reach of your research

Combining open publishing with collaboration can also contribute to the reach of publications. The white paper analyses the growth of China’s collaboration, showing that gold OA articles co-authored by researchers in China and the Global South increased from 11,000 in 2020 to 19,000 in 2024, representing an average annual growth rate of 15%. These collaborations were associated with strong citation impact. Gold OA articles co-authored by researchers in China and the Global South generated 195,000 two-year citations for articles published in 2020, rising to 303,000 for articles published in 2022.

More importantly, the collaborations benefited not only the Global South, but China as well. In 2022, co-authored gold OA articles between China and the Global South received 16.1 two-year citations per article, compared with 5.1 for all Global South gold OA articles and 9.9 for all China gold OA articles.

This suggests that openness and collaboration can work together. OA helps make research accessible; collaboration can strengthen its relevance, networks, and potential readership across regions. For researchers, the broader lesson is that impact can be strengthened when openness is combined with meaningful international collaboration.

The importance of where you publish: Citation advantage with Springer Nature gold OA

Publishing open access is an important step in increasing the visibility of research, but where you publish can also influence who discovers and engages with your work. Case studies presented in the white paper suggest that where research is published can influence how widely it is used.

For example, gold OA articles from China's top 20 institutions published in 2022 in Springer Nature journals generally received more citations from researchers in the Global South than the broader market average for gold OA articles. The University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, for example, recorded 4.7 Global South citations per gold OA article in Springer Nature journals, compared with 2.7 across all publishers.

The citation advantage is visible across a selection of disciplines analysed in the white paper. In each research area examined, China’s gold OA articles published in Springer Nature journals received more citations from the Global South per article than the market average.

What researchers can learn from the impact of China’s OA

Your research can have greater influence when it is easier to access and to discover, and when it is connected to the communities that can use it. The white paper shows that gold OA helps research move across disciplines and regions.

Openness can provide a foundation for greater visibility and stronger international engagement, while international collaboration can extend reach. Combined with informed decisions on where to publish, your work can reach more readers, generate discussion, and create real-world impact.

Explore the white paper: Open for impact: China’s gold open access boosting global innovation and supporting the Global South. And to maximise your work’s reach, consider publishing your next article open access with Springer Nature.

Related content:  

• Open for impact: What China’s OA growth shows about the future of global research
• China OA on the rise: What are the drivers behind authors’ OA choice?
• From research to policymaking: insights from China
• How Chinese research is shaping global SDG policy
• Enabling open access publishing in Asia and Oceania

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

This is the seventh and final blog post in our series in which researchers share their experiences with open science practices, and reflect on the impact that sharing open data, code, and protocols can have.  

Carole Goble is Professor of Computer Science at the University of Manchester and a leading figure in open science, FAIR data, and research infrastructure. A co-author of the FAIR Principles and co-founder of the UK Software Sustainability Institute, she has spent nearly three decades building the tools, platforms, and collaborations behind transparent, reusable research. We spoke with her about why infrastructure, incentives, and culture must evolve together. 

Can you briefly introduce yourself and your area of expertise?  

My specialisms are semantic technology, metadata, computational workflows, and disrupting scientific communication through open science. For over a decade I've been joint Head of Node of ELIXIR-UK, the UK's national Node for ELIXIR, the European research infrastructure for life science data. We have 31 organisations in the UK, while ELIXIR spans 22 countries across Europe and coordinates the management and sustainability of life science data. 

I'm a co-author of the FAIR Principles and a founding partner of the European Virtual Institute for Research Software Excellence. I’ve spent much of my career developing open science infrastructure, including FAIRDOM-SEEK, myExperiment, and its successor, WorkflowHub. Until recently I was co-lead of Health Data Research UK, and I serve on the G7 Open Science Working Group as the UK expert. 

How did you first become interested in open science practices, and what motivated you to adopt them?  

“The Human Genome Project showed that science at scale depends on bringing data together and sharing it openly.” 

                                          Carole Goble

I began my career in health data, which isn't open at all, and moved into bioinformatics in the late 1990s. The life sciences have a long history of sharing results in databases for the common good. The Human Genome Project showed that science at scale depends on bringing data together and sharing it openly. 

That set up an obvious question: why not approach everything this way? Through the 2000s there was real momentum, alongside a deeper question about whether scholarship is just about publishing papers. More and more information was becoming available, and people were doing more analysis with computers and software, but almost none of it survived beyond publication; it disappeared the moment it went into the paper. So how could we introduce living papers that share the underlying analysis and data? 

That's when I started myExperiment, a way to share your workflows and analysis. The idea that we should share how we did something took off, not just to pass on know-how, but to show transparently how the work was done. This ties into research integrity and reproducibility: there was a bit of a reproducibility crisis at the end of the 2000s. People publish papers, but how can you stand behind what they did if they haven't shared the data or analysis behind it? 

These aren't new ideas, they go back a long way, but I became part of a community that drove the push for transparency, reuse, and recognising the value of artefacts beyond the written narrative: data, software, standard operating procedures. A lot of my work was in the biosciences because they were so open to it. 

Have you ever faced any particular challenges or barriers in undertaking open science practices?  

The barriers aren't technical. Brian Nosek's Strategy for Culture Change pyramid sums it up, though it has one flaw: the shape implies a hierarchy, with policy tiny at the top and infrastructure broad at the bottom, as if you build it in layers. I don't think that's right. It's really a series of interconnected circles because you have to work on all of them at once to move the needle. Policy isn't enough on its own, you need the infrastructure that lets things be shared, the skills that make it easy, and the incentives that give me a reason to make my work not just available but genuinely reusable. Making something available is easy; making it reusable is not. 

We see this constantly: counterfeit sharing, where you say you've shared something but haven't because there isn't the metadata for anyone to use it. That's why we push so hard on the FAIR aspects. Then there's something less like sharing than flirting: just enough metadata to interest you, but not enough to reuse anything. So, you approach the people who created it, take them to dinner. Eventually they say, ‘Yes, we can work together, and you can put me on your paper’ because the paper is still the currency. 

It's easy to say something is open, but how open is it really? People still operate on incentive models built around authorship rather than reuse and citation, and they're genuinely bad at citing, whether it's data, software, or credit for the people who did the work. That feeds the same problem. You have to make it normative. That's the top of Nosek's pyramid: it becomes standard practice. 

There's one piece missing from his pyramid: usefulness. He has possible, usable, mandatory, normative - but not useful. All the infrastructures I've built are still going. We keep trying to kill off myExperiment, it's so old and we've got WorkflowHub now, but people still use it. I still see papers published around it because it's useful. The challenge is fitting the pieces together: getting policy pushed through, the incentives right, perceptions shifted. It's hard, and that includes publishers as much as funders. The funders are actually pretty good. It's the publishers who could play a bigger role. 

Is there a particular success story or example you’re proud of that illustrates the benefits of open science?  

WorkflowHub and FAIRDOM have been great successes for sharing a particular kind of software, and because the infrastructure itself is open, people set up their own instances. Another is the TeSS training portal, a central hub for life sciences training, and an example of both shared software and shared practice. The platform underneath it was taken up by high-energy physics, CERN in particular, and by other countries: Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, each reusing it for their own training. Now we've come together in a European Commission–funded programme to build a single shared platform: instead of each running our own instance, we run one shared service. That's the mTeSS-X project. 

This is what happens when you make things open: other people, organisations, countries, and disciplines reuse them and work with you to deliver. That matters when nobody funds training portals. Everyone says training and skills matter, but you can never get the money. This is where open proves its worth collectively. 

How has open science shaped collaboration, sustainability, and real-world impact throughout your research and educational work? 

“The benefits [of open science] are enormous. Organisations feel part of the team, which keeps the work going, and working openly lets you sustain what you do: the more platforms we develop, the more people use them and the more momentum you build.” 

                                                                      Carole Goble 

My entire career is built on it. We're serial collaborators who've built everything jointly. ELIXIR as a whole has around 300 organisations across its 22 countries, open working on a scale that's hard to imagine. The benefits are enormous. Organisations feel part of the team, which keeps the work going, and working openly lets you sustain what you do: the more platforms we develop, the more people use them and the more momentum you build, not just in how research becomes open, but in finding new income streams. To be blunt, when the chips are down in one country, another steps in to help. 

My measure of importance is impact. Did it make a difference? Could people share their workflows and collaborate around their data? If so, that's a success. Think about it the other way: you publish a paper, nobody cites it, what's the point? You've added a line to a CV. There has to be something that actually comes out of it. 

If we'd just done it in our own little bubble, who would know about it? Who would join us to develop it? We wouldn't have had the adoption, sustainability, innovation, or collaboration. We wouldn't have been part of ten Horizon Europe projects right through Brexit, when the UK wasn't even associated with it. Think how many people saw their careers end because the funding dried up. We carried on. That's a testament to our open practices. 

Are there any gaps in support or resources about open science you’d like to see addressed?  

The UK has shown remarkable foresight. It funded the Software Sustainability Institute in 2010, and the eScience Programme led by Tony Hey, started around 2000, is twenty-five years old now. That programme laid the foundations for much of today's eScience activity, for the work I’ve done, and for many of the national digital research infrastructures now being built across the physical sciences, biosciences, and beyond. The European Commission has been enormously helpful too. So, the funders have genuinely driven this; they've had the vision. 

I'd like the publishers to be more engaged. Picture four corners. The funders are one, and they often engage. The communities are another, and they’re very engaged. Then the institutions, even more conservative than publishers: they only change when forced from outside, and that force usually comes from publishers and funders, because institutions respond to money and fame. The fourth corner is the publishers. They hold the fame ticket, and the ticket to access and reuse: can I get the method and the data? If publishers had more of a voice in how we sustain the resources that archive that data, we might build more impetus to hold funders to continued support. 

So, we could get far more from publishers and institutions than we currently do. We could also achieve much more with a systemic way of managing our open research infrastructures. At the moment, they're funded piecemeal. We're still using an early-twentieth-century funding model to sustain international infrastructures, and that's a big problem. 

What advice would you give to researchers considering open science practices, and what misconceptions need to be challenged? 

If you're thinking about making things available, I'd first ask: are you reinventing something that already exists? Do you really need to build it? What's the cost of reuse? The second is to find out what support your organisation offers to prepare your data and software for reuse. It takes time and resources, so build it in from the start. There's no point pretending it's all easy and free. It isn't, but the payoffs in collaboration and citation are big, and there's plenty of evidence that papers people can access get cited more. So, build it into your processes and make it normative but expect to resource it or to push your organisation to. 

If you do nothing else, stick it in a database and put it on GitHub. Use an electronic lab notebook, anything that makes it a bit better. Don't just say, ‘No, I won't do it at all.’ We need to train up the next generation and build these skills within institutions — because institutions are where researchers live. 

Remember that FAIR doesn't mean open. It means accessible. You can be FAIR without making everything available. It's also not free: everything has to be paid for, and somebody carries the cost. Another misconception is that if something's open it can't be worth anything. Actually, it's worth a great deal. Open software powers industry. OpenUK has good data on how much UK business depends on open infrastructure. Open data is what powered AlphaFold. If that data hadn't been available, AlphaFold would be an algorithm pootling around in a corner. Open data drives this new generation of AI-driven research, and it's hugely valuable. 

One final point: open needs to be protected. Making it open doesn't mean people can steal it. Open also carries a responsibility of citizenship. Without it, we get a tragedy of the commons. In fact, we've already entered one, where people exploit open resources for their own gain. Open is vulnerable if it isn't protected. It's for the public good, so don't just expect it to still be there. Don't take it for granted. 

Learn more about open science and sharing research data, code and protocols & methods openly.

Carole Goble, Professor, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK 

Carole Goble is Professor of Computer Science at the University of Manchester and a leading figure in open science, FAIR data, and research infrastructure. A co-author of the FAIR Principles and co-founder of the UK Software Sustainability Institute, she has spent nearly three decades building the tools, platforms, and collaborations behind transparent, reusable research. Professor Goble serves on the G7 Open Science Working Group as the UK expert.  

Related content:

• Open science conversations: 

1. Building trust through transparency: An open science conversation with Geir Kjetil Sandve 
2. Open science, altruism and impact: An interview with clinical geneticist Zornitza Stark
3. Bioinformatician Johannes Koester on embodying the spirit of open science 
4. How to do science that matters: Computational biologist Casey S. Greene on purpose-driven open science practices 
5. Open science before it had a name: An interview with molecular biologist Steven Henikoff 
6. From code to chemistry: A conversation with Connor W. Coley on open science practices and reproducible AI research

•  Best practices for transparency and reuse: 

1. How to share your research protocols and methods openly 

2. How to share your research code openly 

• Supporting open science practices: 

1. Why share your research data? 

2. Why sharing protocols matters 

3. Why sharing your code matters 

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

Research integrity is essential for maintaining trust in research, but sustaining this integrity requires efforts in a complex landscape. Institutions have a key role to play by fostering a culture that supports responsible research in practice. In a special blog series, we draw on interviews with institutional research integrity experts from various regions to explore how integrity is experienced in practice, and what it takes to sustain it.

In this second blog of the series, we explore the gap between integrity training and research practices and discuss how institutions can reshape incentives to make training more meaningful in everyday research practices.

In the first blog of this series, we mapped the complexity of today’s research integrity landscape. With insights from institutional integrity experts, we recognised the importance of collaboration, communication, and trust for the work of institutions with publishers and funders to advance and maintain research integrity. Turning inwards to the institutions themselves, in this blog we explore their efforts to cultivate a research integrity culture that endures, with the backdrop of day-to-day pressures that sometimes pull researchers away from good practice.

For the insights in this blog and the other in the series, we draw on our conversations with Jonas Åkerman, Research Integrity and Ethics Coordinator, Ethics Support Function at Stockholm University, Sweden, Daniel Barr, Principal Research Integrity Advisor at RMIT University, Australia, Rod Bates, Former Research Integrity Officer at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, and Lauran Qualkenbush, Senior Director for Research Integrity and Training and Research Integrity Officer at Northwestern University, United States and founding member of the Association of Research Integrity Officers.

When research practices contradict institutional integrity training

Institutional research integrity experts point out that although institutions support researchers through training, this training can come into tension with research practices. When everyday research practices clash with integrity education, this can undo the efforts to train and maintain research integrity standards. What supervisors communicate in their labs “sets culture,” as Lauran Qualkenbush explains, even if it contradicts what she teaches in research integrity classes.

Researchers are hardly motivated against good integrity practice. On the contrary: “The vast majority of researchers want to conform to good research practice,” says Jonas Åkerman. “The problem is that they are challenged by features in this ecosystem that incentivise them to sometimes compromise.”

This is an important reminder for institutions that invest time and resources in training: What happens after the training can be just as important. The workflows and environment in which researchers work, the patterns of supervision, and the pressures of assessment shape how things are done in practice.

“Research will always be competitive, but we can take away some of the negative incentives, set positive incentives, and provide researchers with guidance and the best possible conditions for good research practice.”
- Jonas Åkerman, Research Integrity and Ethics Coordinator, Ethics Support Function at Stockholm University, Sweden

Encouraging good research practice through institutional support and services

Telling researchers what good practice entails is not enough to operationalise a research integrity culture. Institutions need to also work actively to counter the “features in the ecosystem” Åkerman mentions, that motivate researchers to take shortcuts. Indeed, many pressures are outside the realm of influence of institutions, but identifying where they can meaningfully support researchers is vital.

For instance, the two main research integrity challenges as identified by the integrity experts we spoke with, authorship and data, could be opportunities for targeted intervention by institutions. Supplying researchers with compliance checklists guiding them on how to maintain research integrity in authorship and data management is a good start. But institutions can consider ways to offer additional services addressing these issues and encouraging good practice throughout the research cycle. These could mean the difference between training and guidance that is external to researchers’ practice and offerings that can be implemented in these practices.

The problem with ‘box ticking’ training that the integrity experts raised was also identified in a global survey by Springer Nature on research integrity training. In the white paper titled ‘Surveying the provision of research integrity training around the world,’ researchers expressed concern that the training they were offered was not tailored to the immediate needs of their research practice. The white paper suggests that more training is not necessarily the solution: For complex issues (such as data sharing), researchers may best be served by access to specialists rather than be expected to develop these specialist skills themselves.

Supporting research assessment reform to realign incentives

Incentives are a daily behavioural driver. When success is measured primarily through speed and publication metrics, it can create conditions where research integrity issues become more likely.

Prioritising quantity over quality is a reward structure that can incentivise shortcuts and corner cutting. “A lot of the misconduct is carried out because people need more citations, more publications,” Rod Bates says.

Research assessment for hiring, promotion, or funding has long been challenged for its evaluation practices and the need for more holistic approaches to researcher contributions. While reforming research assessment requires action from stakeholders across the research community, institutions can consider how they support reform initiatives within their own processes, and strengthen researchers’ understanding of the importance of transparency, reproducibility, and data stewardship beyond more traditional success signals.

Creating conditions that incentivise responsible research

Jonas Åkerman describes incentives as the “simple but impossible” problem. Institutions can’t remove competition from research, but they can remove some of the most damaging pressures and add positive incentives by “providing researchers with guidance and the best possible preconditions” to do responsible work.

Creating these counter incentives does, however, require resources. With “genuine funding” for responsible research, Daniel Barr claims, institutions would be able to assist researchers directly and also resource the support teams around them that help with practical aspects of responsible research.

Institutions don’t necessarily need to establish new scorecards for these positive incentives. Libraries often offer services that are preconditions to research integrity like data support, repository guidance, or metadata and licensing advice. More broadly, institutions can enable practical conditions that make responsible work more achievable: allocate time for researchers to adopt relevant good practices, ensure support is visible and normalized, and set clear expectations around transparent and open sharing of data, methods and outputs, in line with reproducibility and integrity standards.

How can institutions make research integrity the default rather than the exception?

Research integrity training is essential, but we must recognise that it cannot alone compete with contradictory incentives, signals, and culture. Institutions have the power to create an environment that elevates integrity training into responsible research practice and culture through targeted, strategic actions.

Some insights emerge from our conversations with institutional integrity experts:

• Make research integrity a meaningful part of everyday decisions:
  Responsible practice expectations can be incorporated into hiring, promotion, and internal funding criteria. When these expectations are communicated throughout the institution, they signal the value of integrity.
• Design support to pre-empt errors that are later complex to address:
  Strategically embedding practical and simple support throughout the research lifecycle where issues tend to arise later, such as authorship clarifications, contribution statements, data deposit checklists, and clear pathways to seek out support on specific issues.
• Invest in tools, systems, and people to bridge between research integrity ideals and daily practices:
  Investing in practical support that can help researchers apply training in their day-to-day work, such as data management platforms, repository guidance, authorship templates, and access to specialist advice.
• Equip supervisors and local leaders to become research integrity champions:
  Lab heads and principal investigators set culture and example for their researchers. They should be supported not only with policy and rules, but also with practical tools such as templates, escalation routes, and coaching that can make these figures into integrity facilitators and ambassadors.

These efforts require strong and committed leadership. In the next and final blog of this series, we explore what this leadership commitment looks like in practice, and how institutional support networks can support research integrity where research actually happens. Stay tuned.

Related content

• Institutional perspectives on strengthening research integrity through collaboration
• Emerging librarian roles in supporting ethical and rigorous scholarship
• Research integrity in the age of open access and AI: The view from France
• How libraries enhance research ethics for researchers
• Navigating research integrity in the age of AI

Don't miss the latest news & blogs, subscribe to The Link Alerts!

For pharma and biotech research and development (R&D) teams, access to scientific research now shapes the speed, accuracy, and direction of innovation.

To better understand how organisations are navigating these challenges, Springer Nature surveyed 300 pharma and biotech professionals across North America and Europe. The findings reveal that as research demand continues to accelerate, access pathways have struggled to keep pace, creating friction across workflows that depend on fast, reliable scientific insight.

Explore key insights from the report and how organisations are reducing research friction to move from discovery to decision-making with greater confidence.

Research access is under pressure from every direction

Scientific literature is now fully embedded in daily workflows, with survey data revealing that 81% of pharma and biotech professionals access scientific research weekly or daily. Yet, as research demands grow, access is being shaped by wider structural pressures rather than isolated issues.

The research shift from reference material to core infrastructure

Researchers now rely on scientific literature from experimental design and validation through to interpreting results. It also underpins regulatory and compliance documentation, where accurate evidence is essential for approvals and submissions.

Beyond the lab, research supports strategic R&D decisions and competitive intelligence, with researchers using published findings to:

• Track therapeutic progress
• Identify emerging opportunities 
• Understand market positioning

Research access now functions more like operational infrastructure than a discretionary resource, similar to cloud platforms or essential laboratory equipment.

Why fragmented discovery slows scientific progress

Despite this reliance, discovery remains fragmented. There is no single route to scientific content, with researchers moving between:

• Publisher platforms, such as Springer Nature Link 
• Open access (OA) repositories 
• Institutional library systems 
• General search engines, including Google Scholar and PubMed 
• Emerging AI tools  

This often creates repeated switching between systems, duplicated search effort, and uneven access experiences. For startups and cross-institutional teams, inconsistent subscription coverage adds further friction, turning discovery into a multi-step process rather than a seamless workflow.

Research demand is growing, but access inequality persists

Access also remains uneven. The Springer Nature survey reveals that while 65% of researchers highly value subscriptions, 26% report having no access, and only 12% rely on personal subscriptions. This reflects more than a pricing challenge. It highlights a wider organisational capability gap that most strongly affects:

• Startups
• Scaling biotech firms
• Smaller or distributed research teams

As a result, some of the environments driving the highest research demand continue to face the greatest access limitations.

What the data reveals about access, speed, and trust

Survey insights from pharma and biotech professionals reveal a few clear patterns:

1. Speed to knowledge is now a core R&D constraint

Limited access to literature can slow progress at multiple stages of the pipeline, including:

• Delaying patent filings 
• Weakening IP positioning 
• Reducing the ability to act early on emerging science 

It also affects clinical development. Delays in accessing key studies can slow trial design decisions and regulatory readiness. In competitive research environments, even small bottlenecks can affect commercial advantage.

2. Paywalls and fragmented access reduce productivity 

When researchers encounter paywalls or gaps in coverage, work rarely stops. Instead, time shifts toward:

• Tracking down alternative versions of papers
• Contacting colleagues
• Relying on informal sharing networks

These workarounds interrupt active research workflows, particularly during literature reviews and analysis phases. They can also increase compliance risk when content is accessed outside formal systems.  

3. Discovery fragmentation creates a “cognitive tax”

Fragmentation creates more than operational friction. It also increases cognitive load. Researchers move between multiple platforms, logins, and search tools, often repeating the same queries across different systems. 

They also spend time confirming whether sources are complete, current, and credible. This ongoing validation slows momentum and diverts high-value scientific time away from interpretation and experimentation. 

4. Trust in quality remains the anchor

Even as AI tools and open platforms become more common, trust remains the deciding factor. In fact, the survey found that 47% of researchers prioritise content quality above all other considerations. 

Peer-reviewed journals continue to be the most trusted source, particularly in regulated environments where accuracy matters. Researchers remain cautious about unverified outputs, especially when decisions affect clinical or regulatory outcomes — reinforcing the importance of trusted research ecosystems.

How organisations can close the research access gap

As research workflows grow more complex, pharma and biotech professionals can take a more strategic approach to research access by:

Reframing access as a performance lever

Faster access to trusted literature can help R&D teams:

• Make stronger decisions
• Minimise delays across development pipelines
• Respond more quickly to emerging scientific developments

This also changes how organisations evaluate ROI. The value extends beyond content access alone and includes reduced risk, faster validation, and improved research velocity. Organisations that align access strategy with pipeline goals and competitive priorities are often better positioned to maintain momentum in competitive markets.

Building scalable research foundations early

Fragmented access can quickly become a barrier for startups and growing biotech firms as teams expand. Establishing consistent, centralised access early helps create more stable research workflows and reduces reliance on disconnected sharing networks or informal access routes.

It also gives smaller organisations a stronger research capability from the start. In lean environments, efficient access can help teams compete more effectively alongside major players.

Reducing fragmentation and compliance risk

Consistency across global and cross-functional teams is increasingly important for larger pharmaceutical organisations. Standardised access pathways can reduce duplicated effort, support collaboration, and limit reliance on unofficial sharing channels.

Integrating research access into wider governance and compliance frameworks also strengthens operational resilience. Amid evolving regulatory expectations, trusted access systems are an essential aspect of research integrity and long-term efficiency.

Why hybrid access models are emerging as the practical standard

Open access repositories support broad discovery and accessibility. Researchers often rely on OA content during early-stage exploration, interdisciplinary scanning, and initial literature reviews. It helps teams engage with a wider scientific conversation and identify emerging developments more quickly.

Subscription-based access remains essential for deeper research and higher-stakes decision-making. In areas such as drug discovery, clinical development, and regulatory preparation, researchers depend on validated, peer-reviewed evidence and comprehensive journal coverage to support confident analysis and reduce risk.

Creating a more connected approach to research discovery

For corporate R&D teams, the focus is moving away from choosing one model over another. More effective workflows combine the reach of open access with the depth, consistency, and trust of subscription-based research.

As AI-enabled discovery tools continue to evolve, this balance is becoming even more important. Accelerated discovery here can support innovation, but trusted evidence remains central to compliance and research quality.

Closing the gap between discovery and decision-making

Fragmented systems and inconsistent access continue to slow progress at critical moments across the R&D lifecycle. Closing that gap requires more connected research environments built around efficient discovery workflows and reliable data foundations. This shift is essential for ensuring that faster discovery is matched by trusted, high-quality scientific evidence.

Read the full report to explore the survey findings and trends shaping the future of research access in pharma and biotech.

Related content

• IP for startups: Protecting innovation with patents & copyrights
• Reproducibility in R&D building trust and digital foundations — Expert perspectives (Part 1
• Transparency in R&D and reproducible research in practice — Expert perspectives (Part 2)
• How digital labs enhance reproducibility and accelerate innovation

Don't miss the latest news & blogs, subscribe to The Link Alerts!

Springer Nature, in cooperation with Overton, has published a report ‘From publications to policy: The impact of research towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals’. The report explores where, when and how SDG research is cited in policy, offering a new perspective on the relationship between science and real-world decision making.

This infographic distils the key insights from the report, offering a visual snapshot of the main findings and recommendations.

Infographic: From publications to policy: The impact of research towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

We invite you to explore the infographic, download it, and share it with your network.

For a deeper dive into the full analysis and recommendations, we encourage you to read the report. 

Related content: 

• Report: From publications to policy: The impact of research towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals 
• Blog: How SDG research drives policy: A special report 
• Blog: Can open access help SDG research achieve greater impact? 
• Blog: How Chinese research is shaping global SDG policy 
• Blog: From research to policymaking: insights from China 

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

The Government of India’s One Nation One Subscription (ONOS) is a significant step towards democratising access to scholarly knowledge across the country. By enabling nationwide access to high-quality research literature, the initiative strengthens India’s research ecosystem and supports the country’s ambition to become a global leader in science and innovation.

As a participating publisher, Springer Nature is proud to support ONOS, helping unlock high-quality trusted research for millions of students, faculty members, and researchers across India’s universities and research institutions, supporting India’s continued rise on the global research stage.

India’s momentum was the focus of our Global Pulse report in 2025, which highlights the country as a top three global research contributor with rapidly growing high-impact output. As India’s research profile continues to strengthen, expanding access must be accompanied by efforts to build the skills, confidence and best practices needed to achieve high-quality publications. To support this goal, Springer Nature launched the ONOS Researcher Connect webinar series, a programme designed specifically for India’s researcher community. The series covers topics ranging from navigating research platforms and understanding research metrics to research ethics, responsible AI use, and scientific writing. Drawing on insights from nine sessions and participation from over 14,000 researchers across India, this case study highlights practical guidance for researchers at every stage of the research lifecycle.

About ONOS

Launched in 2025, ONOS provides nationwide access to over 13,000 scholarly journals from over 30 global publishers. In its first phase (to December 2027), more than 6,500 government universities, research centres, and higher education institutions across India benefit from full-text access for all their students, researchers, and faculty.

The programme also includes support for open access publishing. A centrally managed Article Processing Charge (APC) fund of ₹150 crore (approximately €18 million) per year enables eligible researchers to publish in 400+ selected fully open access journals, helping expand the visibility and accessibility of Indian research.

Making the most of ONOS: Navigating the latest research

As highlighted in the Global Pulse report, India’s growing contribution to high-impact research makes staying current more important than ever. Through ONOS, researchers can access a wide range of Springer Nature content, including the Nature portfolio (with backfiles dating to 1997) as well as journals from Springer, Palgrave, Adis and other Nature-branded titles.

During the webinar series, experts shared practical strategies to help researchers navigate and use these resources effectively:
 

• Refine searches with targeted keywords: Using advanced search filters (such as subject, article types, and date ranges) can help quickly narrow broad results and surface the most relevant research.
• Set up alerts for journals and articles: Alerts ensure researchers receive notifications when new research is published in their field, helping them stay up to date.
• Engage with wider research communities: Platforms like our Researcher Communities, Springer Nature blogs like The Researcher’s Source, and newsletters like Nature Briefing provide additional perspectives on developments across disciplines and insights into life in research.

Strengthening research integrity and good practice

As India’s research ecosystem expands, maintaining high standards of research integrity is essential. Research integrity is not only about avoiding misconduct, it is fundamental to building trust, credibility, and long-term impact for scientific work.

Across the global research landscape, common concerns raised during publication review processes include:

• Image irregularities
• Data concerns
• Plagiarism
• Peer review manipulation
• Authorship disputes

To address these challenges, the webinar series emphasised key principles:
 

• Agree authorship early: Clarifying roles and contributions at the start of a project can prevent misunderstanding later.
• Cite responsibly and avoid plagiarism: Accurate citation and careful paraphrasing ensure that previous work is appropriately acknowledged.
• Maintain clear and transparent data records: Well documented methods datasets strengthen reproducibility and trust in research findings.
• Follow journal policies carefully: Reviewing author guidelines and ethical standards before submission helps ensure a smooth publication process.

How to write and publish scientific research effectively

Publishing research remains a key milestone in the academic journey. Several sessions in the series focused on helping researchers prepare manuscripts effectively and navigate the publishing process, including journal selection and the responsible use of AI in research workflow.
 

• Selecting the right journal: Matching your manuscript with the most appropriate journal is an important first step. Tools such as Springer Nature’s Journal Finder can help identify relevant journals based on your manuscript title, abstract, and keywords. Researchers should also review a journal’s aims, scope, and editorial guidelines, and check practical information such as policies and publication model – for example, some fully open access journals are included in ONOS, meaning you may be eligible for APC support.
• Write clearly and effectively: A well-structured manuscript helps communicate research more effectively. Clear organisation - from introduction and methods through to discussion and conclusions - ensures readers and reviewers can easily follow the research narrative.
• Use AI responsibly: Artificial Intelligence tools are increasingly used in research workflows. For example, to support language editing or summarisation. While these tools can improve efficiency, they should never replace original thinking, critical analysis, or ethical responsibility. Researchers should always follow the AI policies of their chosen journal and remain transparent about the tools used.

Increasing the reach and impact of research

As the Global Pulse explores, India’s growing share of highly cited and high-impact research reflects not only rising output but also increasing global engagement and influence.

To maximise the reach and impact of their work, researchers should consider:
 

• Enhancing discoverability: Publishing in well-indexed journals and using clear titles, abstracts and keywords helps ensure research reaches the widest possible audience.
• Monitoring research impact through multiple metrics: No single indicator (like Journal Impact Factor) can fully capture the influence of research, quality or impact. Considering a range of article-level metrics, including citations, usage statistics, and altmetrics, provides a more comprehensive view of how research is being read, shared, and applied.

Supporting researcher development in India

Springer Nature’s ONOS Researcher Connect webinar series, facilitated by our Account Development team in India and supported by expert speakers from across the organisation, has already engaged more than 14,000 researchers in India.

We noted in the Global Pulse report that India’s research landscape is dynamic and diverse, spanning leading research universities, emerging institutions, and specialised research centres. Initiatives that combine expanded access with targeted training and support play an important role in helping researchers navigate publishing pathways, strengthen research practices, and maximise the global visibility of their work.

Feedback from participants reflects the value of these efforts:

“Thank you so much for the nice initiative. You are the first publisher to conduct such training out of ONOS publishers. I am happy to see this wonderful initiative by Springer Nature to familiarize Researchers and Library professionals with your rich content.”

Recordings from all nine webinars are available on YouTube, and researchers can also join the conversation through our LinkedIn community to stay informed about future ONOS training and engagement opportunities.

Explore more insights into India’s growing global research impact in Springer Nature’s Global Pulse Report 2025.

Related content:

• India’s global research impact: What editors and publishers need to know

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest!

Recent years have seen rapid rise in the number and reach of gold open access (OA) articles from China. A new white paper explores how gold OA publishing is increasing the visibility and reach of China’s research globally, and how this growth benefits China and its international partners, particularly in the Global South.

Insights from the white paper demonstrate what institutions and libraries should consider for their OA strategies to maximise growth, visibility, and reach for their researchers’ work. In this first blog of a two-part series, we explore how gold OA is reshaping the global research exchange, and where collaboration with the Global South is driving shared value. 

Research is increasingly published openly, making it more accessible worldwide and contributing to wider global usage and citation. The Springer Nature white paper 'Open for impact: China’s gold open access boosting global innovation and supporting the Global South’ focuses on how China’s rapid expansion in gold OA publishing is supporting broader visibility, engagement, and collaboration. It provides Chinese and global institutional decision-makers with a strategic view of how OA can be leveraged to reshape future research. 

The OA landscape in China: Growing uptake and shifting attitudes

Over the past five years, the volume of gold OA articles has increased significantly, reflecting a broader shift towards immediate access across the global research landscape. China’s OA output is a particularly strong example of this trend. Its gold OA output grew from 154,000 articles in 2020 to 295,000 in 2024, reflecting a strong annual growth rate of 18%, well above the global average of 7%.  

This growth is accompanied by shifting researcher attitudes. A 2024 Springer Nature survey of over 1,500 researchers in China found that 55% were feeling more positive about OA than two years earlier, indicating that researchers are increasingly valuing the visibility and discoverability that open publishing can offer. 

How China’s OA research is used and cited globally

The average number of citations for China’s gold OA publications is rising significantly alongside the growth in OA output. Two‑year citations (citations received within two years of publication) rose from 1.8 million in 2020 to 2.8 million in 2022, a 55% increase.  

For institutions, citation performance is an important indicator of how widely research is being used and referenced in the global community. Because some research assessment and global ranking methodologies use citation-based indicators, growing citation levels can also help institutions evidence the reach and influence of their research. 

Rising citation levels of OA publications signal that increased accessibility is influencing the visibility and use of research globally. When we look at which countries are citing China’s OA articles, we find that the impact of these articles is indeed global.  

The white paper shows that nearly 40% of citations to China’s 2022 gold OA articles come from publications without authors in China. 19% of the citations come from articles with an author in another country in Asia, while 18% have an author in Europe and 11% have an author in North America. This spread of citations across regions highlights the global reach of China’s OA research, showing that it is being used and referenced well beyond its country of origin. 

Measuring reach beyond academia 

Downloads and citations in formal academic publications are not the only measures of research impact today. Institutions can also use alternative metrics to understand how research is being discussed and shared beyond academic literature. Altmetric data provide this additional perspective, tracking attention from sources such as traditional media, patents, policy documents, social media, and other online platforms. 

For institutions, this kind of data can complement citation and download figures by showing where research is attracting attention beyond academic publishing. In the case of China’s gold OA articles, the white paper shows strong levels of Altmetric attention, while also noting the limits of the metric: Chinese social media platforms are not tracked, and policy and news mentions are dominated by international and English-language sources.  

Against that backdrop, the figures are notable. China’s gold OA articles published in 2022 reached an Altmetric Score of 703,000, increasing by 26% compared to 2020. 2024 articles have already reached 510,000, close to the 558,000 score for 2020 articles despite having had less time to accumulate attention.

Disseminating openly accessible knowledge in the Global South

Broadening access to knowledge across the Global South is part of China’s strategic goal to support global development. Gold OA articles from China published in 2022 generated 1.53 million citations from publications outside China, including 742,000 from the Global South, representing 19% of the total citations. This suggests that researchers in the Global South are not only accessing China’s OA research, but also actively using and building on it in their own research.  

Gold OA is a key impetus behind increased impact and wide dissemination in the Global South. Between 2020 and 2022, the OA articles China published in Springer Nature hybrid journals have almost twice the number of citations per article as non-OA articles: 5.2 Global South citations per OA article in comparison to 2.7 for non-OA articles. The OA articles also have over 4.8 times more downloads per article in the Global South. This demonstrates how open access can substantially increase the reach and impact of research. 

What institutions can learn from China’s OA growth

As these insights show, gold OA can expand the reach of research by making it easier to discover, access, cite, and build upon across borders. China’s rapid growth in OA highlights how increased accessibility can strengthen global research exchange, support wider engagement, and make research more visible internationally, particularly in relation to partners in the Global South. 

For institutions and libraries, these findings underline the importance of aligning publishing strategies with goals around visibility, impact, and international collaboration. They also point to the value of sustained support for gold OA, including dedicated funding, researcher engagement, and advocacy around the benefits of publishing openly. 

Some practical steps institutions can take to position their researchers within a more connected and globally engaged research ecosystem include raising awareness of the benefits of OA among their researchers, supporting gold OA publications, and recognising open outputs and international reach within research assessment and promotion criteria. Institutions can also strengthen the visibility of their research by highlighting high-impact OA collaborations, particularly in areas connected to global challenges and the Sustainable Development Goals.

The white paper offers a deeper look at China’s OA growth, global citation patterns, Altmetric attention, and engagement with the Global South. It also explores how impact is shaped not only by openness, but by publishing choices, including where and what institutions publish, and more. It provides useful context and insights for institutions looking to strengthen the visibility, use, and global relevance of their research.

Read the white paper: Open for impact: China’s gold open access boosting global innovation and supporting the Global South.

Related contents:

• How perceptions of open access in China are changing 
• To publish OA, what institutional support do Chinese researchers need most? 
• OA agreements advance OA publishing in Asia and Oceania

Don't miss the latest news & blogs, subscribe to The Link Alerts!

This is the sixth blog post in our series in which researchers share their experiences with open science practices, and reflect on the impact that sharing open data, code, and protocols can have.   

Connor W. Coley is Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). His research focuses on how data and automation can be used to streamline discovery in the chemical sciences. As a tenured professor, he is closely engaged in open science practices in both his own research and that of his students. Professor Coley has contributed to several Nature journals, with recent publications including A geometric foundation model for enzyme retrieval with evolutionary insights and Electron flow matching for generative reaction mechanism prediction.  

We spoke with Professor Coley about his work and perspective on open science, particularly the importance of sharing code that is accessible, usable, and reproducible for the progression of the field. 

Can you briefly introduce yourself and your research area?  

The research that we focus on in the group relates to the development of AI and other computational methods to help the design, synthesis, and analysis of small organic molecules for the most part. We build a lot of open source computational tools that have relevance to the synthesis of new molecules and their design, in particular for the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. 

How did you first become interested in open science practices?  

“Projects and contributions that are open source and reproducible allow people to understand what was done, how to reproduce it, and how to build on it.” 

                                                                                              Connor W. Coley 

There wasn't a particular defining moment. Towards the end of my undergraduate studies and into graduate school, I benefited greatly from projects and contributions that were open source and reproducible, allowing me to understand what was done, how to reproduce it, and how to build on top of it. When I read research articles that weren't released with corresponding open source code, but they were described in a method, it would present this very clear barrier to understanding and reproducing what was done. 

What open science practices do you use? 

We want to make sure that all the research we do is freely available. Sometimes that will mean publishing open access, so prioritising journals that have policies that let us do that. With our grants, there are some journals where publishing open access is rather expensive, and we don't always opt for that choice, but we will preprint almost every publication we have at the time of submission. We will preprint it typically on arXiv, so there's at least a version of record that is fully open that anyone can access. 

What motivated you to adopt these practices?  

I would say an appreciation for how much I benefited from accessible, reproducible tools when I was learning. During my PhD, I worked on some automation equipment and control software that built a lot upon MATLAB and LabView. Those are commercial environments for code development; LabView being common in laboratory automation for graphical programming workflows.  

That was part of a collaboration with Novartis, and we translated those platforms to Novartis for them to use internally for their research. I recall how much of a barrier it was to ask them to purchase a single site licence to be able to use the software that ran this platform, so having a commercial barrier to simply trying out research tools and products is something that I've tried to avoid in my own research more recently. That's why I'm very thankful that the language of choice for much of the research that we do is Python. We build on a lot of open source libraries and toolkits, and I think the open ethos has become much more ingrained in the field in the past few years. 

Have you faced any challenges or barriers in undertaking open science practices?  

We do a lot of research with statistical learning tools that learn from experimental data sets, and so we benefit greatly from training and deploying such tools with proprietary data sets. These may be commercial data sets that we license, for example, from CAS/SciFinder, and it's natural that in those agreements, we are not able to fully publish and redistribute the underlying data sets. 

That's very reasonable, but it does mean that occasionally, when we are pursuing different research questions, we have to make difficult choices about whether to use a data set we know can be open and reproducible versus a data set we believe to be of higher quality. Data set curation is very laborious and expensive, and there's reasons why that intellectual property lies with the people it does, but it poses a little bit of tension in when we choose to work with different data sets, knowing that it can't be fully reproducible like it could be with other data sets. 

Is there a particular success story or example you’re proud of that illustrates the benefits of open science?  

“You know that the research contributions you're putting out into the world are actually being adopted and used.” 

                                                        Connor W. Coley 

Quite often when we publish a new computational method, we'll receive a series of communications from colleagues in industry, from large pharma companies to biotechs, expressing interest in the tools, and so we get to feel that response from the community. I can imagine a situation where you preprint a method and there's no feedback from the community, except maybe a few months later you get some citations, but in this very much open science practice, you know that the research contributions you're putting out into the world are actually being adopted and used. 

I would also say that making sure your publications and methods are open source increases the number of people who are able to read, compare, and benefit from them. It's great for the field. We've encountered plenty of situations where we're unable to compare to a method someone else has published; maybe because it's inadequately described and it's not open source, or it's explicitly commercial and proprietary and their licence forbids comparison. By making your methods open, you become a part of the community. Maybe you become a row in a table that's used for comparisons in the future. It enables faster development in the field overall. 

A question we get asked frequently is about the intellectual property we might seek for the methods we develop. Patenting is a complicated landscape for some of these algorithmic contributions. Copyrighted software that is licenced commercially could be a revenue source for the lab, institution, and me personally, but I think the greater impact on the field offsets those incentives for me. 

It also shapes the kinds of collaborations we pursue. It makes the work we do more visible and attracts interest from folks in pharma who are very eager to work with us. One tangible example is a consortium we have at MIT called the Machine Learning for Pharmaceutical Discovery and Synthesis Consortium. This is a partnership between MIT and currently 9 pharmaceutical and chemical companies, and there's a commitment that the outputs of this sponsored research be made available, open, and pre-competitive. Not only that, but I'd say peers express appreciation. Certainly, student trainees from other groups around the country and the world express appreciation, frequently, about our approaches to open science. 

Are there any gaps in support or resources about open science you’d like to see addressed?  

One aspect of open science is making sure that the information being shared and published is in a form that can be easily read, adapted, and benefited from. There are some fields where deposition of crystal structures, for example, of inorganic molecules is mandated in the CSD, or you're expected to deposit protein structures in the Protein Data Bank. But in most other fields for other types of data, there aren't really any clear guidelines or expectations around the structure it should be in or the repositories they should be placed in. 

Several years ago, a few of us in the field created the Open Reaction Database to try to help define what is a useful data structure for capturing information about chemical reactions in a clear, systematic way, with the hopes that down the line, when data of synthetic organic transformations is published, it will be maximally beneficial for people that train models on that data or want to search it more easily. This is very domain- and field-specific, but I'd say that many scientific practices lack well-defined data structures, and that sort of heterogeneity impedes some text and data mining applications that would otherwise be enabled. 

I greatly appreciate when journals are by nature free to read and free to publish. When journals are diamond open access, that's a very big draw for me as an author. 

What advice would you give to researchers considering adopting open science practices?  

“Reproducibility is a necessary element of solid scientific contributions and so having your methods and code be fully reproducible through open access software is the best way to make a contribution to the field that others can truly benefit from.” 

                                                                                  Connor W. Coley 

There are almost no downsides to preprinting. It's a great way to increase the reach of your papers to receive additional feedback even during the stages of peer review or in informal ways for software, code, and machine learning-focused contributions.  

Reproducibility is a necessary element of solid scientific contributions and so having your methods and code be fully reproducible through open access software is the best way to make a contribution to the field that others can truly benefit from. 

There's also a very big difference between making your code available and making your code accessible, usable, and reproducible. It is true that when we open source software code, we do so with the expectation that there will be work required to respond to issues on GitHub to help people use the software in the way it was intended. That is one thing about publishing open source methods: you sign yourself up for a little bit of additional maintenance of that resource. Whereas for a publication you don't do that; once the publication is accepted, you're essentially done. We have to keep in mind from the beginning of a project that we're signing ourselves up for greater visibility, and maybe greater scrutiny, but that's part of how we share our work. 

I don't know how true this is, but I feel like there is a perception perhaps that sometimes open science comes at the expense of maintaining a competitive advantage in a crowded research field. People might think if they make their code available, someone will quickly improve upon it, or if they make their data set available, people will show that a different modelling approach does better on the same data set. There might be a reluctance to enable those direct comparisons that might be unflattering, but I do think ultimately this is how the field progresses. I just believe it's so inherent to how we need to do science. That should outweigh any fear of embarrassment. 

Learn more about open science and sharing research data, code and protocols & methods openly.

Connor W. Coley is the Class of 1957 Career Development Professor and an Associate Professor  at MIT. The Coley Research Group works at the interface of chemistry and data science to develop models that understand how molecules behave, interact and react. 

Dr. Coley earned a bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California and a master of science degree in chemical engineering practice and Ph.D. in chemical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He completed postdoctoral work at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Related content:

• Open science conversations: 

1. Building trust through transparency: An open science conversation with Geir Kjetil Sandve 
2. Open science, altruism and impact: An interview with clinical geneticist Zornitza Stark
3. Bioinformatician Johannes Koester on embodying the spirit of open science 
4. How to do science that matters: Computational biologist Casey S. Greene on purpose-driven open science practices 
5. Open science before it had a name: An interview with molecular biologist Steven Henikoff 
6. Building the infrastructure for open science: A conversation with Carole Goble 

•  Best practices for transparency and reuse: 

1. How to share your research protocols and methods openly 

2. How to share your research code openly 

• Supporting open science practices: 

1. Why share your research data? 

2. Why sharing protocols matters 

3. Why sharing your code matters 

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

I recently had the pleasure of attending Hay Festival for a conversation that brought together several of the things I care about most: books, science, public dialogue and the transformative power of the arts.  

Hay-on-Wye is a remarkable setting for a science conversation. At first glance, a literary festival might seem an unusual place to discuss psychobiology, epidemiology, biomarkers or health policy. But that is precisely what made the event so powerful. Surrounded by readers, writers, artists, thinkers and curious members of the public, science felt not separate from culture, but deeply embedded within it. 

I was there on behalf of Springer Nature for the John Maddox Conversation, a set piece lecture sponsored by Nature and dedicated to sharing scientific ideas with passion and clarity.  

John Maddox, Editor-in-Chief of Nature for 22 years, believed strongly in the importance of scientific thought in public life. His years at Nature spanned extraordinary advances, from the moon landings and modern computing to IVF and the growing recognition of climate change. He understood that science changes the world not only through discovery, but through explanation, challenge and public engagement. 

I spoke with Professor Daisy Fancourt for this year’s Conversation, a leading scientist who epitomises the spirit of the John Maddox Conversation. She is Professor of Psychobiology & Epidemiology and Head of the Social Biobehavioural Research Group at UCL and one of the most highly cited scientists in the world. Together we discussed her bestselling book The Art Cure: The Science of How the Arts Transform Our Health. 

Her work explores the evidence that art and cultural participation can influence health and wellbeing in measurable ways. We spoke about music, reading, performance, visual art and creative practice; about stress, loneliness, resilience, pain, ageing and cognitive reserve; and about the challenge of communicating complex science without simplifying it beyond recognition. 

What stayed with me most was the way the conversation moved between evidence and experience. Daisy’s book is powerful because it does not ask readers to choose between data and feeling. It recognises that art can produce deeply human, goosebump-inducing moments, while also showing that those experiences can be studied rigorously through neuroscience, physiology, psychology and behavioural science. 

One key takeaway for me was that good science communication starts with respect: respect for the evidence, and respect for the audience. It is not about making science smaller. It is about making it more reachable. The best communicators invite people in through stories, examples and language that connect with everyday life, while still preserving nuance and uncertainty. 

A second takeaway was the importance of crossing disciplinary boundaries. The relationship between art and health cannot be understood through a single lens. It involves biological mechanisms, psychological responses, social connection and behaviour. It requires quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as openness between disciplinary communities that do not always share the same language, conferences or journals. At a time when many of our biggest challenges are complex, from mental health to ageing to climate change, that kind of connection is not optional, it is essential. And long-form formats, the book, are a key part of creating and delivering that connected content.  

The third takeaway was about access. If arts and culture can support health, wellbeing and belonging, then they cannot be treated as luxuries. Questions about who gets to participate, who feels welcome, who can afford access and how arts are valued in education and public policy become health questions too. The false divide between “arts people” and “science people” begins early, and it limits all of us.  

Events like this matter. A literary festival creates a different kind of public space for science. People arrive ready to listen, question, connect and be surprised. They may not come as specialists, but they come with curiosity. In that room, the discussion was not only about the science of art; it was itself an example of science becoming part of culture. 

For publishers, researchers and communicators, the lesson is clear. We need to meet the wider public where meaningful conversations are already happening. Science communication is not only about broadcasting findings. It is about building trust, making knowledge usable, and showing why research belongs in public life. 

I left Hay reminded that art and science are not opposing forces. Both are ways of paying attention to the world. Both can change how we understand ourselves and one another. And when they meet in public, they can do something even more powerful: they can help people feel that knowledge is not distant but shared. 

78% of researchers use social media for work - but a fragmented landscape means community and trust matter more than ever.

How researchers use social media is evolving rapidly - and our 2025 survey of over 10,000 academics highlights just how fragmented, yet vital, these platforms have become for the research ecosystem. In a series of blogs, we will explore how researchers can navigate these changes.

At a high level, social media is no longer only a peripheral tool for academic work and networking. It is increasingly central to discovery, communication, and collaboration. Nearly four in five researchers (78%) use social platforms to discover research content and news, making it the single most important activity across all regions and career stages.

Yet where, and how, this happens is shifting. 

A concentrated yet fragmented landscape 

Despite the proliferation of platforms, a few key players now dominate. ResearchGate (78%) and LinkedIn (62%) remain the core work platforms, functioning as anchors for professional identity, networking and discovery.  

At the same time, more informal channels are rising. WhatsApp, in particular, has seen explosive growth, now used by 47% of researchers for work and increasingly for collaboration, sharing research, and promoting one’s findings. A surprising development, and the platform seeing the greatest gain in the last year for work use (+22pp (percentage points) YoY), was YouTube (also at 47%), signalling the increase in video content as a dominant source of news. These spaces are quickly becoming key for informal knowledge exchange and learning. 

This signals an important shift: academic exchange is no longer confined to formal platforms. Instead, it is happening across a mix of structured, format-diverse networks, and private, community-driven spaces. Regional differences further reinforce this fragmentation, with researchers in Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East often relying more heavily on messaging platforms, while North America and Europe remain more selective.  

The decline of shared public spaces 

At the same time, some long-standing platforms are losing ground. The use of X (formerly Twitter) has dropped significantly (-10 pp YoY), alongside declining activity and engagement. The reasons are telling: researchers cite a loss of community, reduced relevance, and concerns about politicisation. When trust in the platform or its community erodes, researchers disengage. 

“It is not just platform features that matter - it is the quality of the community and the trust within it. The decline of what was once known as “Academic Twitter” reflects a broader shift in platform dynamics. Publisher’s need to respond to these changes and maintain a strong presence where their audience is and ensure that trusted knowledge is amplified amid the increasing polarisation”.

Tina Harseim, Director of Social Media and Employer Brand at Springer Nature

Trust and misinformation: a growing barrier 

Perhaps the most important finding is the growing impact of trust on researcher behaviour. Two-thirds of respondents agree that untrustworthy content reduces how much they rely on social media for research discovery.  

This has clear implications. Social media remains essential for the academic discourse - over 75% believe it will become increasingly important for science communication - but it is also contested. Researchers are actively filtering what they see, where they engage, and what they share. Almost half also report hesitating to participate due to concerns about negative or hostile responses.

Community as the foundation of impact 

In this environment, community is emerging as the defining factor for success. Platforms that thrive - whether ResearchGate, LinkedIn, Bluesky or WhatsApp - do so because they enable meaningful connections: sharing papers, discussing methods, and building relationships.  

"Nearly two years ago, we started on Bluesky to build a community that does exactly this. Since then, we have seen steadily increasing engagement and higher-quality conversations that reflect what we experienced on X a decade ago. However, achieving the same reach remains more challenging in today’s increasingly fragmented social media landscape"

Tina Harseim, Director of Social Media and Employer Brand at Springer Nature

Importantly, community is not just about engagement; it is about authenticity and therefore increased trust. Researchers are more likely to participate in spaces where content is credible, discussion is constructive, and professional norms are upheld. 

What this means for researchers 

For researchers and the wider academic community, the takeaway is clear: social media still offers enormous value, but only when used intentionally. 

• Go where your community is: platform choice matters less than who is there 

• Prioritise trust over reach: credible engagement beats visibility alone 

• Contribute with purpose: as short-form, algorithm-driven content competes for attention, thoughtful, evidence-based contributions matter more than ever. Community quality is shaped by participation

  
  

In an age of misinformation, visibility alone is not enough. The real opportunity lies in cultivating trusted communities; spaces where research can not only be discovered, but understood, debated, and advanced. 

Because ultimately, the future of social media in science communication will not be defined by platforms, but by the quality of the communities we build within them. 

The data from this survey has been made open access for anyone who would like to use it. You can find it on Figshare here. 

Interested in hearing more? We'll be releasing more insights and data from our social media surveys. Sign up to The Researcher's Source newsletter to be the first to read them.

_{Tina Harseim, Director of Social Media and Employer Brand at Springer Nature}

_{Tina is based in our Berlin office and leads the company’s global social media strategy. Her role encompasses establishing best practices and guidelines for effective and responsible social media use, as well as amplifying the brand’s voice across platforms. With a background in Media Science and over 15 years of experience in communications and branding, she also drives Springer Nature’s employer brand strategy. As co-lead of the Employer Brand Ambassador Programme, she empowers colleagues to build their personal brands and authentically showcase the company’s culture, values, and mission.}

Related content:

• Understanding the research community: why surveys matter
• How to use social media to promote your book: a guide for authors
• Dos and don’ts of AI for social media
• How to promote Collections on social media: Tips for guest editors

_{Highlights on the technological trends, trust and transparency from the 9th World Conference on Research Integrity, Vancouver}

Last month I had the opportunity to attend WCRI 2026 in Vancouver, joining colleagues from across the research integrity community to step back and reflect on how research integrity is evolving. As part of my role at Springer Nature, many of the conversations felt familiar, echoing challenges we’re already working on, while also offering additional perspectives on where things may be heading. 

AI was inescapable; not as a novelty, but as a thread running through almost every session I attended. What struck me most was how the conversation has matured.  Fewer people are now asking whether AI is changing research integrity, almost everyone now accepts that it is. The more interesting question, and the one that dominated the sessions I found most valuable, is what a meaningful, coordinated response could look like.  

One of the clearest signals of this shift came from the inclusion of sessions focusing on the development of AI-based detection systems that identify large volumes of submissions or analyse peer review activity for unusual patterns (we’re developing similar systems at SN). The scale of the challenge, and the need for responses that can operate systemically rather than case by case, was a consistent theme across the conference. 

Alongside this, specific integrity challenges highlighted how quickly the landscape is evolving. One widely discussed finding, from an analysis of BMJ Group journals, showed that just 5.7% of authors disclosed any AI use, even when they were required to. While many authors appear to be using these tools to improve writing, the gap between use and disclosure is hard to ignore.  It’s something we recognise too from our own work, and it highlights the need for clearer, more consistent guidance. 

Other sessions focused on the difficulty of identifying AI-generated or manipulated content. A pre-conference bioimaging workshop, for example, invited participants to distinguish genuine microscopy images from AI-generated ones, demonstrating how challenging this is in practice and how quickly generative technology is advancing.  

Throughout the conference, discussions reinforced that continuously updated detection systems, training and human expertise will all be needed to address these challenges effectively. 

In response to these pressures, there is a growing emphasis across the community on developing more coordinated approaches. The conference’s Focus Track (working toward a Global Reporting Standard for AI Disclosure in Research, supported by COPE and STM) felt particularly timely. The ambition is to produce what has been named the Vancouver Standard: a shared framework for AI disclosure that works across disciplines and publication cultures (more about this in Chris Graf’s opinion piece in Research Professional News). It is an initiative that will benefit from broad engagement across the research community. 

These discussions closely reflect work already underway at Springer Nature. Within the Research Integrity group, and particularly in the Prevention team, we have been developing approaches that align with many of the trends discussed at WCRI. One area of focus is the growing issue of hallucinated or unverifiable references. To address this, we have been working collaboratively across the company to expand our irrelevant reference detector towards detecting hallucinated or unverifiable references above a certain threshold. As with all AI-supported approaches, human oversight remains essential, particularly given the risk of false positives. We continue to refine our approach, taking care to improve accuracy, while carefully mitigating these risks.  

Alongside this, our work is increasingly centred on large-scale, data-led analysis that includes identifying patterns of misconduct through analysis of author networks and identifying peer-review duplication, which aren’t visible in a single submission.  This shift, from case-by-case investigation to system-level insight is helping to strengthen preventive measures and respond more effectively at scale. 

It was also encouraging to see colleagues from Springer Nature contributing directly to these discussions. Research integrity advisor Manisha Wardhwa emphasised the importance of not jumping to conclusions when assessing potential AI misuse, highlighting the need to look carefully at the metadata and carry out thorough investigations. Ed Gerstner addressed a related but equally important issue: the growing gap between how researchers are assessed and how they would prefer to be assessed, and the role that reform could play in shaping research culture. Together, these contributions highlighted the continued importance of careful judgement, support and education in strengthening research integrity and preventing misconduct. 

A plenary session on AI ethics added another important dimension, highlighting the need to consider global perspectives. Speakers Dr Titilola Olojede and Dr Retha Visagie reflected on the risks of developing AI ethics from a single cultural viewpoint, and the importance of accounting for differences in access, education and research contexts worldwide. 

What I found most encouraging at WCRI was a shared willingness to move beyond diagnosing challenges towards taking action. While tools are improving and policy frameworks are beginning to take shape, the conference reinforced that one of the most complex parts of this work is ensuring that researchers at every career stage and every part of the world can engage meaningfully with these developments and that the norms we build are ones they recognise as their own. 

If there is one overarching takeaway, it is that safeguarding the scholarly record will depend on how effectively we connect these efforts globally.  The challenge now is less about recognising risks, and more about aligning responses across systems, organisations and regions. Without that alignment, even the best tools and policies will fall short. 

Learn more about Springer Nature’s approach to research integrity here. 

Safeguarding research integrity is a shared responsibility across institutions, publishers, and funders, but the landscape of research integrity is complex and approaches vary. As integrity issues become more challenging, institutions are asked not only to enforce standards, but to foster a culture that supports responsible research in practice. In a special blog series, we draw on interviews with institutional research integrity experts from various regions to explore how integrity is experienced in practice, and what it takes to sustain it across a multi-stakeholder research landscape.

This first blog explores the current landscape through contributions from our contributing experts, highlighting the challenges they face and the role of communication and trust in navigating them.

Research institutions are at the centre of the integrity landscape, responsible for upholding research integrity through prevention, guidance, and, when needed, training. But they do so within a complex, interdependent system that also includes publishers, funders, and other stakeholders, making effective coordination, communication, and trust essential.

We spoke with institutional integrity experts from various regions to learn about their work: and to gain insight into how institutions can best navigate the integrity landscape:

• Jonas Åkerman, Research Integrity and Ethics Coordinator, Ethics Support Function at Stockholm University, Sweden
• Daniel Barr, Principal Research Integrity Advisor at RMIT University, Australia
• Rod Bates, Former Research Integrity Officer at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore
• Lauran Qualkenbush, Senior Director for Research Integrity and Training and Research Integrity Officer at Northwestern University, United States and founding member of the Association of Research Integrity Officers

In this blog, the first of a three-part series, we explore the current integrity landscape and how collaboration and communication help institutions navigate it. These insights set the foundation for the next pieces in our series, which look more deeply at integrity culture, incentives that undermine integrity, and the meaningful role of leadership in making responsible research the norm.

“Research integrity is extremely important, and the challenges are only going to get greater.” - Rod Bates, Former Research Integrity Officer at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore

Challenges of the current integrity landscape

Research integrity challenges are not new, but the way they surface, escalate, and get resolved has changed markedly in recent years. Cases are becoming more complex, increasingly cross institutions and national boundaries, and are shaped by rapidly evolving technologies, incentives, and expectations.

From our conversations with institutional integrity experts, we map the central issues they face in today’s research integrity landscape: persistent integrity challenges, inconsistent responses across the ecosystem, and fast-evolving emerging challenges.

Persistent challenges of research integrity: Authorship and data

Authorship disputes seem to be among the most frequently encountered integrity concerns that continuously surface across institutions and regions. “Authorship is a difficult river to navigate wherever you are, whatever stage you’re at,” Daniel Barr explains. Norms vary widely between disciplines, institutions, and countries, and expectations often remain unwritten or assumed rather than explicitly agreed.

Research data management is likewise a persistent foundational challenge. Data, according to Barr, “is the gold of research,” but the work needed to manage, share, and preserve data is unevenly supported. And like authorship challenges, data practices vary not only across disciplines and between institutions, but also within them, shaped by differences in research groups, supervisory relationships, and organisational structures.

Navigating research integrity through widespread inconsistency

There is significant variation in how research integrity concerns are handled across the research ecosystem. Having worked with publishers, institutions, and funders on integrity concerns, Rod Bates says responses are “very mixed.”

Variance in the use of integrity-related terminology further complicates the efforts between multiple actors. Åkerman notes that terms can carry very different meanings across contexts, and decisions may read differently by international publishers or funders without contextualisation.

A fragmented system, with multiple funders and a patchwork of rules and requirements, makes is harder to manage research integrity concerns. Institutions working with multiple funding agencies navigate through different reporting thresholds, definitions, and training requirements, as Lauran Qualkenbush mentions.

Emerging risks unfold quickly

Artificial intelligence is evolving fast, and has been reshaping research integrity, from writing and authorship to detection and oversight.

Several interviewees describe how the rapid uptake of generative AI has outpaced both institutional policy frameworks and technical detection tools. Institutions, according to Lauran Qualkenbush, are “constantly playing catch up from a policy, compliance, and education perspective.” Establishing regulations is challenging when new practices and tools are evolving faster than norms, governance, and support mechanisms can adapt.

“There are many stakeholders to bridge across the system, and we have a common goal: We all care about the integrity of the scientific record. But we have to work together.” - Lauran Qualkenbush, Senior Director for Research Integrity and Training and Research Integrity Officer at Northwestern University, United States and founding member of the Association of Research Integrity Officers

Communication and trust: Key to handling research integrity effectively

When rules, terminology, and expectations differ across institutions, funders, and publishers, even well-intended actions can be misunderstood or delayed. The research integrity experts return to the same foundation for effective integrity work: clear communication, reliable points of contact, and relationships built on trust.

Direct communication speeds up alignment

Communication is repeatedly considered by research integrity experts as the most decisive factor in the success of collaboration. Qualkenbush is particularly explicit: “It’s all about communication.” She explains how verbal communication supports her interactions with publishers and enables progress where written, reserved communications might not suffice.

Direct and responsive communication enables contextualisation and helps to reduce uncertainty and misinterpretation, especially in sensitive cases where written communication can feel too committing and discourage open discussion.

Clear contact points make collaboration possible

Communication certainly also depends on knowing who to talk to. Åkerman stressed that “one thing that’s crucial is to have a clear contact point.” Without named roles or identifiable functions, even well-intentioned institutions can struggle to engage effectively. This engagement is essential for contextualising terms and decisions and managing the complexity of the research integrity landscape.

Trust accelerates resolution

With contacts to communicate with, relationships and trust develop and become the keys to effective collaboration. Barr observes that “when you’re in a trusted working relationship, things happen smoothly and quickly… it feels collegial and supportive.”

When trust is established, rapid and productive decision making is possible. It is an operational asset that shapes timelines, reduces defensiveness, and enables actors across the system to act with confidence.

Institutional efforts to sustain research integrity: Turning policies into practice

Our conversations with Åkerman, Barr, Bates, and Qualkenbush offered insights into research integrity as experienced by institutional practitioners: complex, uneven, and under pressure. This first blog focused on mapping that landscape and exploring the opportunities for improvement through better alignment and coordination across the system.

In the next blogs, we explore what institutions can do internally to cultivate a research integrity culture that endures. We discuss the gaps between training and practice, the role of incentives in shaping behaviour, and the importance of visible leadership commitment and embedded support networks (stay tuned).

Related content

• Emerging librarian roles in supporting ethical and rigorous scholarship
• Research integrity in the age of open access and AI: The view from France
• How libraries enhance research ethics for researchers
• Navigating research integrity in the age of AI

Don't miss the latest news & blogs, subscribe to The Link Alerts!

Artificial intelligence chatbots are quickly becoming part of everyday life for many young people. According to a Pew Research Center survey, nearly two thirds of U.S. teenagers have used an AI chatbot, with more than one in four using them daily. Notably, almost 12 percent of teens report turning to these tools for emotional support or advice.

These trends framed the conversation at the tenth annual Science on the Hill event, held in April 2026 at the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill, Washington. The event brought together scientists, academics, and policymakers to explore how Congress and federal agencies can encourage innovation while safeguarding the public—particularly young people who are increasingly relying on digital tools for connection and support. 

Watch a recording of the event:

Panelists discussed the safety challenges posed by AI chatbots, especially when they are used during moments of vulnerability. Even systems informed by behavioral science can unintentionally provide misleading or harmful advice, raising concerns about their impact on young users’ mental health and social development, panelists shared. Speakers also examined whether heavy reliance on chatbots could affect children’s ability to form healthy, real‑world relationships. 

Another key theme was the gap between where teens are seeking help and how those tools are designed. Researcher participants stated that while general‑purpose platforms like ChatGPT are widely used, they are not built or evaluated as mental‑health supports. Panelists emphasized the importance of helping young people understand both the benefits and limitations of these tools, and of promoting access to evidence‑based, transparent digital resources that foster healthy connection. 

The discussion highlighted a range of potential congressional and federal actions, including regulatory approaches, incentives for responsible product development, and public‑private partnerships. Speakers stressed the need for clear guardrails—such as transparency and accountability standards—that protect users without slowing technological progress that could expand access to care. 

The event concluded with a near 1-hour long Q&A, underscoring strong interest among policymakers and staff in addressing AI’s rapidly evolving role in young people’s lives. Overall, the conversation reinforced the importance of thoughtful, science‑informed policy to ensure innovation in AI serves the public good while keeping safety front and center. 

Find out more and watch the recording of the Science on the Hill 2026 event ‘Help or Hype? How Kids Use AI Chatbots for Mental Health’

Related content: 

• How SDG research drives policy: A special report

• Can open access help SDG research achieve greater impact?

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

This is the fifth blog post in our series in which researchers share their experiences with open science practices, and reflect on the impact that sharing open data, code, and protocols can have.  

Dr. Steven Henikoff is a molecular biologist and professor at the Basic Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre in Seattle, WA; USA. He is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) investigator and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Among one of the first scientists to realise that computing and the internet could revolutionise biological research, he is the recipient of the 55th Lewis S. Rosenstiel Award for Distinguished Work in Basic Medical Research.  

His lab performs research in chromatin, nuclear dynamics, transcriptional regulation, chromosomes, centromeres and, most recently, cancer, developing experimental and computational tools for studying these processes. Having been actively involved in scientific research for over 50 years, Dr. Henikoff has been instrumental in shaping open science practices before ‘open science’ had a name.  

We asked Dr. Henikoff to share his experiences of these evolving practices and how they move the scientific enterprise forward. 

How did you first become interested in open science practices?  

“I first heard the term open science in the early 2000s, but it was really something many of us were doing well before that. When you work on methods, they're only really successful if someone else uses them” 

Steven Henikoff, PhD, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre, Seattle, WA, USA 

I first heard the term open science in the early 2000s, but it was really something many of us were doing well before that. When you work on methods, they're only really successful if someone else uses them, so the focus for my own lab for a long time has been on methods. 

A few years after starting my lab with Fred Hutch, I came up with a method that I realised would be useful to many others to make clones for DNA sequencing, which was later dubbed the Erase-a-Base® System. In the early 1980s, my Erase-a-Base® method would allow someone to finish a project efficiently, whereas shotgun sequencing, which was the norm back then, always left holes that required wasteful redundancy or targeted methods to finish. This is where the open science of its day helped. My Erase-a-Base® method was commercialised as a kit. Kits for genomics were getting started back then before anyone ever heard about open science or online protocols, but the intention was similar. You make a protocol work in the hands of a novice user, that's the idea, and so that got me hooked on developing methods. 

What I first used Erase-a-Base® for was to complete the sequence of a fruit fly gene I'd been working on to understand its alternative RNA processing in two different protein isoforms, and I wondered why this first intron was so large. We’re talking about the early 1980s, and introns were only discovered in genes in pieces maybe several years before, so it was all new, but by searching the intron sequence in all six reading frames against the public protein sequence database, I discovered that there was a protein encoded on the opposite strand and determined that its sequence corresponded to a previously unknown Pupal Cuticle Protein gene. 

Now in the mid-1980s, this was the first example of a gene nested with an intron of another gene; something that later turned out to be quite common, not only in fruit flies, but also in us. The experience encouraged me to use six-frame translation to search DNA sequence databases for protein sequence homologies, which led to further unexpected discoveries and my interest over the long term in developing computational tools for genomics. This depended on researchers depositing their sequence into the GenBank DNA sequence database to make them publicly searchable by anyone around the world using the BLAST server. Whereas previously, I had to purchase floppy discs of GenBank, load them on my personal computer, and do the six-frame translation searches using a standalone program. 

But with the introduction of the BLAST server, anyone could do it from anywhere, and that's really open science to me. So, I got started way back when at the beginning of what we call genomics, which has really flourished. 

What open science practices do you use? 

Open access, sharing data, code, protocols, methods; that's the norm nowadays. For example, HHMI makes co-submission to bioRxiv and public release of data and code mandatory, and other funders are doing that as well. 

Publishing open access is recent relative to the early days of open science. I'd like to emphasise that online searchable databases really drove genomics beginning in 1990. Back then, once you sequenced the gene, the next step was to see if it matched anything known. You'd find the open reading frame in your sequence, then you'd search it against the protein database. If you get access to it, of course, and often, nothing would show up because the database was built on amino acid sequencing of proteins, and that was very low throughput. With automated Sanger DNA sequencing beginning in the late 1970s, that changed all that, and GenBank expanded rapidly with predictive protein sequences curated from public sequences. That was a major effort of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), and they really deserve credit for promoting open science as we know it. It was well before publishers realised that open access could be a viable business model. NCBI was really pushing this since the late 80s, early 90s, so I’d like to give them a little plug because it's sort of forgotten. 

My own work grew from efforts to identify evolutionary relationships between proteins. With my wife Jorja, we developed computational tools such as the Blocks Database and the BLOSUM substitution matrices, now standard in tools like BLAST and FASTA. We also created public tools including SIFT, CODHOP, and SEACR. 

Beyond methods, I’ve been involved in open access publishing, co-founding Epigenetics & Chromatin in 2008 and later serving as field chief editor for Frontiers in Epigenetics and Epigenomics. 

What motivated you to adopt these practices?  

“You enable other people to use a method you develop, and it moves the scientific enterprise forward.” 

                                                                      Steven Henikoff, PhD, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre, Seattle, WA, USA 

The examples I gave sort of illustrate this; you enable other people to use a method you develop, and it moves the scientific enterprise forward. For the journal editing side, it keeps me up to date with developments in the broader field beyond my own research interests and expands my scientific horizons, and that's helped my research, as well as my trainees and my staff. I enjoy learning interesting new science, as we all do, that otherwise would be unfamiliar. So, those are the other motivations. 

Have you ever faced any particular challenges or barriers in undertaking open science practices?  

The biggest barrier that I've run into in recent years is inertia. To try to get people to use our methods and use them correctly, that can be hard. The examples I'm thinking of here are CUT&RUN, CUT&Tag, and RT&Tag; these methods bear no relationship to what the standard has been in the field for chromatin profiling. As a result, the way you evaluate the data can be very different from what the field is accustomed to. 

Lessons we've learned from interacting with users have been incorporated into a Primer article invited by the editors of Nature Reviews Methods Primers and recently published. It's intended to be an authoritative guide for novice users and data analysis providers for this rapidly proliferating class of methods. 

Is there a particular success story or example you’re proud of that illustrates the benefits of open science?  

In the year 2000, we published a paper in Nature of Biotechnology describing a scalable method to screen for point mutations in populations of chemically mutagenised individuals, and we use something called Denaturing High Performance Liquid Chromatography. We call the method TILLING, which is also an acronym for Targeting Induced Local Lesions in Genomes. 

We first applied it to plants, hence the TILLING acronym. We detected missense mutations using this method, and they've been valuable for all kinds of studies. Our first application was for the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, where we discovered induced mutations in DNA methyltransferase genes that we were studying. It worked so well that, together with my University of Washington (UW) colleague Luca Comai, we went on to grow many mutagenised Arabidopsis plants in a big UW greenhouse, and we sent the seeds to the Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center (ABRC). Researchers interested in particular genes would search our Codons Optimised to Discover Deleterious Lesions website, established by Fred Hutch computational biologist Elizabeth Green, and if users find likely deleterious mutations in any of the plants, they order the seeds from ABRC and do backcrossing of the genetics. 

In those days, farmers were reluctant to plant GMO crops, especially in Europe, but mutagenising seeds with chemicals, called mutation breeding, had long been routine in agriculture, so this created a demand for applying our TILLING technology to crop plants. With NSF support, we established programmes with collaborators for maize at Purdue, soybeans at Southern Illinois University, and for rice that was sponsored by the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. We also helped set up TILLING for nematodes and fruit flies, and we ran workshops at UW to teach TILLING to all comers. That was my favourite example. 

How does open science enable collaboration, feedback, and real-world impact in both research and education? 

With protocols.io, for example, if somebody asks a question, it gets us to do a little digging, so that’s kind of like a collaboration. I actually have one in my inbox right now asking for troubleshooting advice on our CUT&Tag-based modification for archival clinical samples. The person who asked the question includes a suggestion for protocol modification that I really hadn't thought of, so it is quite useful for getting us to think. 

There’s also something called the Science Education Partnership at Fred Hutch to teach high school teachers how to engage students in modern science. Students would do nanopore sequencing on microbes that they'd find in seawater, and DNA sequencing in high school is nothing special, but we want to know about genes, right? We want to know about information flows from DNA to RNA to protein, the central dogma of molecular biology that's been around for decades and decades, and what we find is that students don't really understand that. 

Our methods are based on looking at the transcriptional apparatus called RNA polymerase II, and as a result, by just doing the method, they learn about real information flows like that. The paper that we published is called Chromatin profiling for everyone: FFPE-CUTAC for the theory and practice of modern molecular biology. We’re training them in something that's going to be the future, not just DNA sequencing. 

Are there any gaps in support or resources in open science you’d like to see addressed?  

I’m going to soapbox a little bit. Most of the attention in cancer research has been for prevention, of course, and therapeutics. I hear a lot about that; a new drug for this, that, and the other thing. I think that the problem there, is to really do something in the laboratory that is going to be useful in the clinic for cancer research, is going to take millions and maybe investment by Pharma to support the clinical trials needed. This is a huge, huge cost, and it’s a gamble because most drugs actually fail. I just think that we as a scientific enterprise need to pay more attention to the diagnostics and not just do what is already set up because it’s a heavily funded industry. 

What advice would you give to researchers considering adopting open science practices?  

Look at what I've gotten out of it. It's been very useful and it's my job. Funders such as my employer, HHMI, promote that. Not all funders do that, but if you can find a funder who will give you the freedom to take advantage of open science, that's great. 

Learn more about open science and sharing research data, code and protocols & methods openly. 

Steven Henikoff, PhD, Professor, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre, Seattle, WA, USA 

Dr. Steven Henikoff is a molecular biologist who studies the structure, function and evolution of our DNA molecules, or chromosomes. He also develops tools for comparing gene sequences, determining the arrangement of genes in living cells and understanding the biological functions of genes. Credited with helping build the infrastructure for analyzing the human genome, Dr. Henikoff was among the first to realize that computing and the internet could revolutionize biological research.  
He is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) investigator and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the recipient of the 55th Lewis S. Rosenstiel Award for Distinguished Work in Basic Medical Research. 

Steven Henikoff has shared his own protocols on TILLING and Ecotilling in plants and animals, Predicting the effects of coding non-synonymous variants on protein function using the SIFT algorithm, Cell type–specific gene expression and chromatin profiling in Arabidopsis thaliana, targeted in situ genome-wide profiling with high efficiency for low cell numbers, Chromatin profiling with CUT&Tag, and Single-cell profiling of chromatin modifications with sciCUT&Tag by publishing them in Nature Protocols and posted various other protocols in the protocols.io repository. 

Related content:

• Open science conversations: 

1. Building trust through transparency: An open science conversation with Geir Kjetil Sandve 
2. Open science, altruism and impact: An interview with clinical geneticist Zornitza Stark
3. Bioinformatician Johannes Koester on embodying the spirit of open science 
4. How to do science that matters: Computational biologist Casey S. Greene on purpose-driven open science practices 
5. Building the infrastructure for open science: A conversation with Carole Goble

•  Best practices for transparency and reuse: 

1. How to share your research protocols and methods openly 

2. How to share your research code openly 

• Supporting open science practices: 

1. Why share your research data? 

2. Why sharing protocols matters 

3. Why sharing your code matters 

• Starting your career? Here’s how Springer can help you publish open access 

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

As questions about maintaining trust in science become more urgent, the 9th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI), held in Vancouver in May, brought together researchers, publishers, institutions and funders to examine the research landscape and the systems needed to support integrity.

Held every four years, WCRI convenes stakeholders from across the research ecosystem to consider what research integrity should look like in practice. While each conference addresses a specific theme, it has long taken a broad view of responsible research conduct. This year’s programme continued that approach, addressing both established integrity concerns and emerging challenges.

As Co-Chair of this year’s WCRI, and Chair of the WCRI Foundation, I was honoured to work with an exceptional Board, Programme Committee and colleagues from around the world to shape a programme reflecting the scale and urgency of these challenges. Across the conference, one message came through clearly: safeguarding research integrity is a shared responsibility.

This builds on WCRI’s role since its inception in 2007 in shaping global integrity practice.The Singapore Statement developed at the second WCRI in July 2010, remains a landmark example, setting out responsibilities for researchers and institutions that continue to inform practice today. Each subsequent conference has produced a statement defining shared expectations and guidance across responsible conduct, international collaboration, research assessment and global equity. 

This year’s conference focused on three themes: artificial intelligence, research security and Indigenous Knowledge Systems, with the themes illustrating how research integrity is increasingly shaped by complex, system-level challenges.  

The first theme explored both the opportunities presented by AI and the risks it poses for research integrity.AI can support the detection of misconduct but also enable the production of fraudulent papers. As its use grows, the need for clear, consistent and meaningful disclosure across journals, disciplines and institutions becomes more urgent. One important outcome of the 9th WCRI conference will be further work to develop the proposed Vancouver Standard,  supporting transparent disclosure of AI use in research. 

To bring an expert perspective, I asked Simone Culurgioni, Team Lead, Research Integrity (Prevention), who attended the conference, to share his reflections:  

“There is real momentum across the research community, including at Springer Nature, towards innovative, collaborative solutions that can keep pace with how quickly AI is transforming research. What started off as something quite new has quickly become part of everyday practice, and it’s clear we now need coordinated technological responses, greater transparency and human oversight to manage its risks.” 

The conference also discussed research security, highlighting the challenge of balancing the protection of sensitive information with the openness that drives scientific progress. A third strand of the 9th WCRI focused on Indigenous perspectives, encouraging reflection on how research integrity is understood across different ways of knowing, and reinforcing the need for frameworks that reflect the diversity of research cultures. These discussions point a broader shift: integrity challenges are increasingly systemic and require coordinated responses across the research ecosystem.   

The breadth of the programme was also reflected in Springer Nature’s contributions throughout WCRI, with research integrity colleagues' presenting insights from their work: Tim Kersjes, Head of Research Integrity, Resolutions, explored collaboration between publishers and institutions when investigating potential misconduct, as well as the use of retraction datasets in paper mill research. Senior Research Integrity Advisor Manisha Wadhwa shared case studies showing how metadata can help distinguish AI misuse from legitimate practice, while Integrity Manager Svetlana Kleiner highlighted workflows that can strengthen integrity in edited volumes.   

Springer Nature colleagues also examined broader issues, with Ed Gerstner, Director, Research Environment Alliances, focusing on research assessment, Robert Hilliker, Director, Library Relations on the role of librarians in promoting research integrity, and Deborah Sweet, Executive Vice President, Nature Portfolio, on the importance of editorial stewardship in safeguarding the scholarly record. These discussions reinforce that maintaining trust in research requires coordinated action across the ecosystem.  

I left the 9th WCRI conference with a clear sense that these conversations have come a long way and continue to gather pace. Safeguarding trust in research will depend on sustained collective effort and shared standards, and conferences like WCRI remain essential because they turn shared concerns into practical guidance. In the months ahead, I will continue to work closely with fellow committee members to carry these discussions forward and develop the Vancouver Standard.  

Beyond the conference, Springer Nature will continue contributing to collaborative initiatives including STM Integrity Hub, COPE and United2Act, as part of our commitment to publishing trusted, rigorous research. 

Watch our insights video for more reflections from Springer Nature colleagues who attended WCRI.  

Publishing your first book or article is a milestone. How you choose to publish it shapes who reads your work and how far it travels.

For early career researchers in the humanities, social sciences, and business, open access (OA) offers a powerful way to reach a global audience from day one. As part of Springer Nature, Palgrave Macmillan publishes world-class research across books and journals, championing innovative formats for more than a decade.

In this blog, we explore how Palgrave Macmillan supports early career researchers as future leaders in their fields, helping them reach wider audiences. It will also guide you through the funding options available.

Strength in the disciplines that shape society

Palgrave Macmillan has a longstanding tradition of excellence in journal publishing, with more than 40 journals across the humanities, social sciences and business, all underpinned by rigorous peer review. Most are hybrid, so you can choose to publish your article OA at the point of acceptance. 

OA is a powerful driver of reach and impact. By publishing OA, you remove the paywall between your ideas and the people who want to read them, wherever in the world they are. The Journal of International Business Studies recorded 2.1 million downloads in 2025 – clear evidence that rigorous social science research finds a wide and engaged readership. 

Pioneering open access book publishing

Many people still think of OA as something for journal articles alone. But, early on, Palgrave Macmillan took a broader view. Back in 2013, it launched an OA option for monographs and Palgrave Pivots – its distinctive short-form format that sits between a journal article and a full-length book.

It was also a pioneer: one of the first major publishers to offer OA in the humanities and social sciences, and the first to offer the open Creative Commons (CC) licence that many funders now require. That move gave book authors the same freedom journal authors already enjoyed, to make their work free to read for everyone, everywhere, the moment it publishes.

Palgrave Macmillan's influence reaches beyond publication into wider public and policy debate. Its dedication to the UN Sustainable Development Goals shapes research on challenges from climate action to inequality, while campaigns such as Social Science Matters champion the value of these disciplines in public life.

One early landmark was Fungal Disease in Britain and the United States 1850–2000, the first OA monograph funded by the Wellcome Trust. The reach of OA books has grown enormously since then. On average, open access books attract around 10 times more downloads and 2.4 times more citations than non-OA titles, and they reach roughly 61% more countries.

Palgrave Macmillan’s most downloaded OA book of 2025 was The Suez Canal: Past Lessons and Future Challenges, which has gathered 706,000 downloads since it was published in 2023. Few subscription titles reach an audience of that size.

What you can publish open access

Open access at Palgrave Macmillan is not limited to one format. A single book processing charge (BPC) covers a wide range of works:

• monographs
• edited volumes and collections
• textbooks
• proceedings
• protocols
• major reference works
• short-form books (Palgrave Pivots)
• individual OA chapters within an otherwise non-open-access book

Whether you are writing a focused Pivot or a comprehensive edited volume, there is an open access route for it.

If you are weighing up whether an OA book is right for you, start with the Guide to Open Access Books for Palgrave Macmillan Authors. It is a practical, free resource that walks you through the process step by step, from licensing and funding to how readers will find your work.

Funding your open access publication

For many early career researchers, the biggest question is a simple one: how do I pay for it? But support is often closer than you think.

“This was my first time publishing an OA book but there was support for OA funding from my (now former) institution, Yale-NUS in Singapore. Given the book’s topic, and that several of the chapters address issues distinctive to the context of my higher education institution, the Dean of Faculty’s Office and the Educational Resources and Technology team came together to support OA.”

- Nancy W. Gleason, Editor of Higher Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Institutions often rally behind a project they believe in. A conversation with your faculty office, library, or research support team is often the best first step.

So how do the costs work? For journal articles, an article processing charge (APC) usually applies when you publish OA in a hybrid or OA journal. Most Palgrave Macmillan journals are hybrid, so you decide at the point of acceptance whether to publish OA or via subscription – the choice stays in your hands. For books, a book processing charge (BPC) works in much the same way. In both cases, the fee covers the services that turn your manuscript into a polished, discoverable, and permanent record, from peer review and production through to distribution and long-term accessibility.

In practice, you rarely pay this charge yourself. Many researchers benefit from agreements between their institution and Springer Nature. Depending on the agreement, these can cover the full charge, offer a percentage discount, or contribute a fixed amount towards the cost. Funders frequently cover OA fees too. To check what applies to you for a journal article, visit any journal’s ‘Fees and funding’ page and select your institution. For books, a free funding and policy support team can help you find and apply for funding, so you needn’t work it out alone.

When you are ready to dig into the detail, explore the funding options for books and articles and find out more about pricing for books and journals. Together these resources explain how to find an agreement, approach a funder, and secure the support you need before you submit.

Where ideas travel further
 

“Your ideas deserve the widest possible audience.”

Open access is one of the most effective ways to make sure your research is read, cited, and built upon, especially early in your career when reach matters most. With Palgrave Macmillan, you can publish open access across both books and journals, backed by rigorous peer review and decades of experience in the humanities, social sciences, and business - so wherever your research sits, there is a home for it.

Ready to take the next step? Find out more about OA funding options with Palgrave Macmillan.

Related content:

• Palgrave Macmillan Celebrates 25 Years: The Story of Why Social Science Matters
• Why the Social Sciences matter now more than ever
• Publishing an open access book: Q&A with Nancy W. Gleason
• Advancing knowledge: How open access is changing research
• Navigating open access book publishing with the OAPEN Toolkit
• Demystifying the publishing process: What value do open access book publishers add? Part 1
• Demystifying the publishing process: What value do open access book publishers add? Part 2
• Starting your career? Here’s how Springer can help you publish open access
• How to publish open access with BMC: Funding options explained
• Discover journals: Open access funding options for our authors
• A practical guide to your Scientific Reports publishing options

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest!

When you’re choosing where to publish your research, quality matters, but so does who is shaping the conversation around your work. With collections, that responsibility sits with guest editors: experts who don’t just oversee submissions, but actively curate, guide, and safeguard the research within them. Their expertise helps ensure that every paper contributes meaningfully to a wider, high-impact body of work.

In this blog, we explore the critical role guest editors play in shaping successful collections, how they uphold quality and integrity, and why their involvement should matter to you as an author or future guest editor.

In our latest ‘Behind the Collection’ video interview, we go behind the scenes with Dr. Vasiliki Rahimzadeh, guest editor for the collection: Bioinformatics ethics and data privacy, from the BMC Bioinformatics journal. 

She shares what it really takes to build a collection, from shaping the idea, to guiding it through peer review, and beyond. Before you press play, here’s why this role matters, and why it should influence your next publishing decision. 

The invisible layer behind high-quality research

Every collection starts with a simple idea: bring together the most relevant research on a topic that matters now. Yet, turning that idea into something credible, cohesive, and impactful requires more than just a call for papers. It requires expert curation. 

Guest editors play a central role in this process. They define the scope of the collection, identify emerging topics, and invite contributions that move the field forward, not just add to it.  

Crucially, they also manage the editorial journey behind each submission. From selecting qualified peer reviewers to synthesising feedback and guiding authors through revisions, they help ensure that every paper meets the expected scientific standards.  

For you as an author, that means something important: your work is not just published; it’s positioned alongside research that has been actively curated for quality and relevance.

Safeguarding trust, not just content

Quality in academic publishing isn’t accidental, it’s safeguarded. In fact, guest editors are a critical part of that system. They work within a framework of shared editorial oversight, collaborating closely with journal editors and publishing teams to maintain rigorous ethical standards and robust peer review.  

This includes ensuring that submissions are assessed fairly, conflicts of interest are managed, and decisions are grounded in scientific merit. 

Across the industry, there’s increasing focus on protecting the integrity of guest-edited collections, because when managed properly, they strengthen, rather than dilute, journal quality.  

At Springer Nature, this approach is multi-layered. Guest editors are carefully selected for their expertise, trained on editorial policies, and supported throughout the lifecycle of a Collection. They work alongside experienced editorial teams to ensure that every article meets the same rigorous standards as any journal publication.  

For authors, this reinforces a key point: you can trust not only the platform, but the people shaping the research within it. 

From curation to impact: shaping the research agenda

Collections don’t just reflect the direction of a field; they help define it. By selecting themes, identifying research gaps, and bringing together diverse perspectives, guest editors actively shape the conversations happening in their discipline.  

This has a direct impact on visibility and reach. Well-curated collections make it easier for readers to discover research within a focused topic area, connecting your work with the audiences most likely to engage with it. 

And that’s why the role of the guest editor extends beyond editorial oversight: they act as connectors, curators, and champions for the research community.

Thinking about becoming a guest editor?

If you’re an established or emerging researcher, you might be asking a different question: 

Could I do this? 

Guest editing offers the opportunity to shape the direction of research in your field, bringing together collaborators, spotlighting emerging ideas, and building something that lasts beyond a single publication.  

It’s also a chance to develop editorial experience, expand your network, and elevate your visibility within your community. 

But as our video interview reveals, it’s also a role that comes with responsibility, balancing scientific leadership with editorial rigour, and vision with process. 

Go behind the scenes

So what does this role actually look like in practice?

• How do guest editors decide which topics are worth building a collection around?
• What does managing peer review really involve?
• And what does success look like, beyond publication?

In our latest video, you’ll hear directly from a guest editor about their journey, what surprised them, what challenged them, and what made it worthwhile.

Whether you’re considering publishing your work in a collection, or thinking about leading one, this is your chance to see the process from the inside.

Final takeaway

• Guest editors are key to collection quality → they curate, review, and guide submissions 
• They safeguard research integrity → working within rigorous editorial frameworks 
• They shape impact and visibility → defining topics and connecting research communities 
• They offer a pathway for researchers → to lead, influence, and grow their careers 

If you are interested in becoming a guest editor or publishing your research in a Springer Nature Collection visit our new Collections hub to find out more.

Related content:

• Safeguarding Springer Nature collections: the integrity checks you should know about
• The guest editors shaping collection
• Get your research in front of the audiences that matter
• Collections: helping researchers working in emerging and trending areas get noticed
• Expert-led collections: enhanced visibility, credibility, and connection
• Case study: How one collection led to real-world policy impact and academic recognition
• Publishing to reach policymakers: Springer Nature Collections
• Guest Editor Q&A: Becoming a Springer Nature Guest Editor

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Source Monthly Digest!

This is the fourth blog post in our series in which researchers share their experiences with open science practices, and reflect on the impact that sharing open data, code, and protocols can have.  

Professor Casey S. Greene is the founding Chair of and a Professor in the Department of Biomedical Informatics at the University of Colorado Anschutz, as well as Director at the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine. His lab applies computational methods to answer important questions in biology and medicine. He has extensive publishing experience, with articles published in Nature Portfolio journals, such as Latent spaces for tumour transcriptomes, Responsible, practical genomic data sharing that accelerates research and Projecting genetic associations through gene expression patterns highlights disease etiology and drug mechanisms. As an advocate for high-quality science, Professor Greene encourages his research group to approach open science practices in a deliberate and meaningful way.  

We asked Professor Greene to share his perspective on how these practices enable better, more rigorous science that ultimately leads to “more tomorrows”, improving and extending people’s lives through research that others can build on. 

Can you briefly introduce yourself and your research area?  

I'm a computational biologist, and our lab focuses on developing machine learning methods for integrative genomics that help us make sense of mostly large-scale biological data, as well as some clinical data. We've worked in some foundational computational methods development and a lot on applications. We like to spend our time trying to ask the uncomfortable questions that folks sometimes don't ask about the limitations of the data, so there’s a lot of thought about how to design computational experiments. 

How did you first become interested in open science practices?  

“My interest isn't really open science; it's high-quality, rigorous science, and often that happens to be open.” 

Casey Greene, Founding Chair of and a Professor, Dept. of Biomedical Informatics, University of Colorado Anschutz; Director, Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine.

My interest isn't really open science; it's high-quality, rigorous science, and  that often happens to be open. I’ve spent a bunch of time talking about the Open Science Industrial Complex, and I think there is an approach to open science which is open first, science second. That can lead us astray. It's science first, rigorous is the goal and open is how we get there. 

When I started my postdoc, part of that involved the opportunity of picking up some work that was in progress in the lab. I'd try to do something and find someone else had already implemented it. It's not in the core library that we're using; it's in the version on their computer, so now I have to get that from them and then I have to integrate it with this version of the library that I inherited. We spent time basically redoing potentially avoidable work. I guess that's how I came to it first, focusing on version control, provenance, et cetera. When I started my group, that was the goal, and we've improved our practices over time in terms of our expectations of lab members. 

I also think I really like working with people, and there's a limit to the scale of who you can work with if you're going to be closed, even if you use good rigorous scientific practices. If you do this stuff in the open, there's just more opportunity for critique, feedback, and collaboration. I feel like you can do science better and faster if it's open. Not that it should be open just for the sake of it, where it looks open but you don't actually engage with anyone or even use rigorous practices. The rigour is more important than the open, but I think they go together. 

What open science practices do you use? 

Pretty much all our code is on GitHub. Some of that is public while we're working on it, though I don't require that. I do require the code to be public on GitHub at the time of publication. We use a pull request model. We also try to make sure the data is on an appropriate repository. For the work that we do, that's usually SRA or dbGaP, with controlled access depending on the human subject status of it. Sometimes there's not an appropriate repository, so we use things like Zenodo or Figshare. 

Every once in a while, there have been projects that feel like they're beyond the scale of the lab, so we'll actually run the entire project in the open intentionally to advertise it and say, ‘Hey, come here and pitch in.’ I think the ‘Open Paediatric Brain Tumour Atlas’ is an example of that. ‘Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine’ is an example of that. It started with a tweet: ‘I'm kind of interested in reading the deep learning literature. We're going to start a review on GitHub,’ and ended up with 40-odd people writing a paper. 

What does open science look like in the day-to-day practices of your lab? 

Do you know the article ‘The Mundanity of Excellence’? I think open science is not a trend, but these everyday, disciplined practices. These practices let you do science where you might fail at something, but if you fail, you fail because of a good reason and you're not going to make the same mistake twice. You'll make a lot of new mistakes. So many new mistakes, but you don't make the same mistake twice. That’s the type of stuff that separates really good science from great science, and those practices often tend to be open. I think just doing that consistently and well can make the entire ecosystem stronger so that we can return more yield in health sciences; we can return more tomorrows to more people, and ideally doing that is going to be the type of thing that convinces society that, ‘Maybe we should continue to invest in this’. 

There are so many incredibly bright people in science. I am not going to be able to compete on that, but doing the simple stuff well? I can compete in that. You have to find what you're good at and be able to do small, frustrating things and make them not frustrating but a thing you enjoy doing, somehow that's my skill. The great thing about it is being able to find joy in the little stuff. This is why it was great to be able to post a preprint and have someone reach out and give you a comment because you can enjoy that. You can't control the outcomes, but you can control how you do it. That's how you do science that matters, science that other people can build on. 

What motivated you to adopt these practices?  

People like to make the career progression argument for open science, but I think it's actually negative for science as a whole. If we look at preprints, for example, there were a whole bunch of people who decided to argue that we should preprint because it's good for people's careers. I think that's exactly the wrong reason to preprint. I view the posting of a preprint as, ‘Hey, I want feedback on this before it's finalized. I want to hear from people’. I see it as a complement to peer review. 

At the end of the day, our goal as scientists is either to better understand the unknown or improve the lives of our fellow people. The more we bring the focus into ourselves and less about why we do what we do, the more we make bad decisions that are, at best, orthogonal to scientific progress and, at worst, directly contradictory to scientific progress. I would say focusing on career progression will almost always lead you astray. I think it's a lot easier to figure out what you believe and hope that there is an institution out there that values what you value. 

Have you ever faced any particular challenges or barriers in undertaking open science practices?  

This is a barrier, but a fully appropriate one. We do work on data that is from people, and I think there are real barriers to open science practices in the context of research on humans. I also think that those are completely appropriate barriers, so we have to figure out how to do that responsibly because with privacy, once it's lost, it's gone. To me, the biggest true barrier is that privacy is a non-renewable resource. That’s not a bad barrier, but it is something that we have to take exceedingly seriously. 

Is there a particular success story or example you’re proud of that illustrates the benefits of open science?  

For the deep learning review, we wrote it entirely on GitHub with this automatic rebuild process. We ended up writing a paper about the writing of the paper, and there was a lot of fun stuff we were able to do with that. We spun up the same thing in the context of COVID because there was a lot of research starting to come out, and we thought it'd be great if there was a place that could aggregate it. 

There are people I've worked with who I've never met in person because they came across something on GitHub. I've co-authored with people and only met them years later because we interacted on GitHub and ended up writing a paper together. For the Open Paediatric Brain Tumour Atlas, all the analysis happened online in the open, so there's a tonne of people who contributed to this project that I've never met before, but we've done analysis together. It's kind of delightful sometimes. 

Are there any gaps in support or resources about open science you’d like to see addressed?  

It's pretty hard to do things if you're not funded. I do think funding for the sake of open is a little odd. We should fund practices that advance science most effectively and efficiently. I think that has to always be the North Star: what's the underlying goal? 

Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation, for example, have open as a review criterion. I like this policy very much, and I think the reason I like it is because it's very centred on the goal. The goal of resource sharing is to enable faster translation of research discoveries into cures for children with cancer. The goal is not open. The goal is not to help careers. The goal is to make sure fewer kids die of cancer, and then there’s the how. I like this type of approach. ‘We're doing this, here's why we're doing it’, but it's centred on not someone's career. It's centred on what helps kids with cancer not have cancer. 

Also, every time the National Institutes of Health come out with request for input on open science practices, I try to submit this, ‘You should do something like this.’ I think the more that it's box checking, the less effective it is.  I think a focus on the why and then using the why to drive the how feels like the right way to go. 

What advice would you give to researchers considering adopting open science practices?  

“Figure out what you want to do and what change you want to make in the world and then figure out what practices are best aligned with that, and I think you're going to find they're open.” 

Casey Greene, Founding Chair of and a Professor, Dept. of Biomedical Informatics, University of Colorado Anschutz; Director, Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine.

Figure out what you want to do and what change you want to make in the world and then figure out what practices are best aligned with that, and I think you're going to find they're open. For example, the last thing I want to do is have someone else start a project from ground zero if they could have started from some software that we wrote. I'd rather have them use that limited amount of scientific funding to make as much progress as they can make, and if they can start from something we did, they can get further faster. That is a win for everyone. 

Science is generally not a zero-sum game. Society decides where society will invest based on the yield of that investment, and I think most people want to live. I was talking to my daughter yesterday. We were driving back from the airport after dropping a colleague off, and she was asking me a bunch of questions like, “Why do you do what you do?’ I was like, ‘The person who we just dropped off, the work that they do means fewer children will die of cancer. That is what will happen’. What we do in science is ideally about people having more tomorrows. That is an incredible privilege. It is an incredible opportunity, and so keeping yourself grounded in your "why" and then figuring out how to go from that to choosing the right actions for you in your group. 

You’ve got to start with what gets you out of bed in the morning and why you do it because it is real hard sometimes to stay motivated, but if people are going to live happier, healthier lives, I think that has to be what guides you to decide the practices. There's just so much opportunity to make a positive difference in the world, and open science practices just follow from that. 

Learn more about open science and sharing research data, code and protocols & methods openly

Related content:

• Open science conversations: 

1. Building trust through transparency: An open science conversation with Geir Kjetil Sandve 
2. Open science, altruism and impact: An interview with clinical geneticist Zornitza Stark
3. Bioinformatician Johannes Koester on embodying the spirit of open science 
4. Open science before it had a name: An interview with molecular biologist Steven Henikoff 
5. Building the infrastructure for open science: A conversation with Carole Goble 

•  Best practices for transparency and reuse: 

1. How to share your research protocols and methods openly 

2. How to share your research code openly 

• Supporting open science practices: 

1. Why share your research data? 

2. Why sharing protocols matters 

3. Why sharing your code matters 

• Starting your career? Here’s how Springer can help you publish open access 

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

Science is rarely solitary, even when reading happens alone, and we’re reminded of that every time we hear from Nature Briefing readers. One of the most striking patterns in feedback is how often Nature Briefing is shared, discussed and passed on, not as a nice-to-have, but as a practical tool for staying oriented in a fast-moving research world. Read on to hear how it helps researchers stay connected, curious, and up to date.

Why does that matter? Because time is scarce, attention is fragmented, and it’s harder than ever to separate signal from noise. Our job is to do some of that work with you: to surface what’s worth knowing, explain why it matters, and give you something you can carry into your own decisions and conversations. It’s not just that people read the Briefing, they use it. They quote it, debate it, teach with it, and rely on it as a daily touchpoint with what matters in research.

“Reading the Nature Briefing is the first thing I do when I get to the lab and turn on my computer every morning. I’ve recommended it to all my students."

— Jihane Homman-Ludiye, neuroscientist, Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute, Monash University 

Get Nature Briefing in your inbox 

Join researchers worldwide who start their day with a trusted filter for the most important science stories, curated by Nature editors. 

What you’ll get: 

• A quick, readable daily roundup that saves you time 
• Context and clarity, not just headlines 
• Breadth across disciplines to spark new ideas 

Free to sign up. Sign up here.

Forwarded, printed, and talked about

Readers describe forwarding stories to colleagues, sending articles to friends and family, and bringing topics into lab meetings or teaching sessions. Some mention printing quotes or screenshots and keeping them in workspaces as reminders of curiosity and perspective. 

These small actions reveal something important: Nature Briefing doesn’t stay confined to one inbox. It becomes part of wider conversations. 

For you, that can look like a better lab discussion, a clearer way to explain your work to someone outside your field, or simply the relief of feeling caught up without having to chase dozens of tabs. When a story is easy to grasp and grounded in evidence, it’s easier to act on, and easier to share.

“I have been reading and relying on this digital publication for several years for the beautifully curated snippets of science news […] I share these widely with friends and family and have printed screenshots of many Quotes of the Day and posted them in my workspace”

— Anonymous reader  

Trust makes it shareable

Sharing is partly social, but it’s also reputational. We hear that readers are more likely to forward something when they trust the judgement behind it, and when they feel confident it will be accurate, relevant and worth someone else’s time. 

That’s why we care so much about the Briefing’s editorial voice: clear without being simplistic, curious without being sensational. The goal is to give you confidence, that if you send something on, you’re passing along a fair, well-framed account of what’s happening and why it matters.

“Thank you all for being a steady beacon for the wonders of science and promoting awe in these challenging times. Nature Briefing is like my old reliable Nikon binoculars. Always there to help me see the wonders of the world and excite my brain with discoveries”

— Anonymous reader 

A shared language for talking about science

Because Nature Briefing covers a broad range of topics and explains them clearly, it can give you a common reference point, even across disciplines, when you’re trying to make sense of a result outside your lane or talk about it with someone who doesn’t share your background. 

Several readers mention using stories from the Briefing to explain unfamiliar areas of science to others, or to spark interest beyond academia. In this way, the newsletter acts as a bridge between specialist knowledge and shared curiosity.

Belonging in a wide community 

Some readers tell us they feel part of a larger group: people around the world who care about science, accuracy and understanding. We don’t take that lightly — and we think it matters because research can be demanding and isolating, even in busy institutions. 

Especially for those working in challenging contexts or transitioning between career stages, the Briefing can offer continuity, a reminder that you’re still connected to the scientific conversation, and that your curiosity has a place to land each day. 

“I love the range of topics that you cover and the personal notes that you add at the end. It really makes me feel like we are part of something large community of people who are interested in "nature"!”

— Anonymous reader

A daily ritual, wherever you are

Many readers describe opening the Briefing as part of their routine: with a morning coffee, on a commute, between experiments, or at the end of a long shift. The consistency is part of the value, it turns “keeping up” into something manageable. 

That shared cadence creates a subtle form of togetherness: thousands of people encountering the same story on the same day, then taking it into their own conversations and decisions. Community doesn’t always require a forum, sometimes it starts with a common prompt.

Reader moments (in their own words)

The details vary, but the pattern is consistent: the Briefing travels.

• “I forward one link a week to my lab group, it’s the easiest way to start discussion without adding another meeting.” 
• “I use the Briefing to find a story outside my field, then I bring it into lectures as an example of how science connects.” 
• “When I’m between roles, it keeps me feeling anchored to research, like I haven’t fallen out of the conversation.” 
• “I send it to my parents sometimes. It helps explain why a new result matters without the jargon.” 

Keeping curiosity alive

Across all feedback, one idea surfaces again and again: wonder. 

Readers talk about delight, surprise, humour and moments of joy, things that are easy to lose sight of in professional environments driven by deadlines and metrics. For many, Nature Briefing helps keep curiosity alive, even on busy or difficult days.

“I greatly enjoy the Nature Briefing. My late husband was a brilliant man with a beautiful heart […]. The Briefings help me keep in touch with many topics that he and I used to discuss, and this connection is helping my heart heal.”

— Anonymous reader

Join a global community of curious readers

If you want a quick, trustworthy way to stay oriented, and something worth sharing when a story matters Nature Briefing is made for you. Sign up to join the Briefing community. 

Related Content

• Nature Briefing: science stories curated by editors, not algorithms
• Nature Briefing: a trusted way for researchers to stay informed and avoid overwhelm
• Trusted, readable, human: why researchers love Nature Briefing
• How Nature Portfolio Authors balance life and research
• Making an impact: Nature Portfolio authors on their most influential articles
• Behind the results: Nature Portfolio authors speak about the unseen efforts underlying their research
• Nature Portfolio authors explain how inclusion and diverse perspectives strengthen their research
• Insider perspectives: What authors really think about publishing in Nature Reviews
• How Scientific Reports supports research careers
• What does it mean to be part of Nature Portfolio? We ask Scientific Reports authors
• The open access advantage: Real stories from multidisciplinary Scientific Reports authors

Not all science newsletters are created equal. Researchers receive countless links to papers, press releases and headlines every week. Yet when asked what keeps them returning to Nature Briefing, many focus not on what is included, but how editorial decisions are made and communicated.

For Briefing readers, the value is straightforward: it helps you stay across the research that will shape your work, without having to trawl dozens of journals, preprint servers and press offices. It filters out the noise, adds just enough context to judge relevance quickly, and flags the papers and stories worth discussing, citing or sharing with colleagues.

“It’s a great balance of insightful and entertaining and gives me the info (and a fun break) that I’m looking for." 

— Tyler Arbour, biogeochemist, Center for Microbial Ecology and Technology, University of Ghent

Get Nature Briefing in your inbox 

Join researchers worldwide who start their day with a trusted filter for the most important science stories, curated by Nature editors. 

What you’ll get: 

• A quick, readable daily roundup that saves you time 
• Context and clarity, not just headlines 
• Breadth across disciplines to spark new ideas 

It’s also free to sign up.

Why curation still matters

In an age of algorithms and automated feeds, human judgement remains valuable. Readers consistently mention trusting Nature Briefing because they believe stories are chosen with care, not popularity alone. 

They appreciate that the Briefing pulls from multiple sources, reflects a range of perspectives, and avoids sensationalism. Over time, that consistency builds confidence: readers feel they can rely on what’s included to be worth their attention.

“Your newsletter is a wonderful source of science news, and I appreciate your engaging writing style. I am also very fond of the way you summarize the stories you link to. […] You clearly invest more thought and work to deliver enough information to give me a good idea of the topic.”

— Anonymous reader  

Summaries that do more than tease 

One detail readers highlight repeatedly is the quality of the summaries themselves.

Rather than simply repeating a headline or first paragraph, Nature Briefing provides context: what the finding is, why it matters, and how it fits into a broader conversation. For readers, this difference is significant. 

Several note that this thoughtfulness allows them to understand unfamiliar topics quickly, and makes the reading experience more rewarding, even when they don’t click through to the full article.

Respecting readers’ intelligence

Another reason readers trust Nature Briefing is tone. 

They describe feeling spoken to, not at. There’s an assumption of curiosity and intelligence, without jargon or oversimplification. That balance, accessibility without dilution, is something readers say they notice and value. 

This sense of respect plays a key role in long‑term engagement. Readers feel comfortable returning day after day, knowing they’ll be informed without being patronised.

Trust built over time 

Trust isn’t built by a single newsletter; it grows through hundreds of consistent editions. 

Many long‑time readers note that Nature Briefing feels familiar, reliable and consistent. Even as topics change, the editorial approach remains steady. That predictability becomes part of the value: readers know what they’re going to get. 

In a crowded communication landscape, that kind of relationship is rare, and easy to underestimate.

“Nature Briefing is the only news I am opening these days. It’s a life saver. I always forward an article or two to family and friends.”

— Anonymous reader

Experience Nature‑edited science news

Sign up to Nature Briefing for trusted science stories carefully curated by Nature editors. 

Related Content

• Trusted, readable, human: why researchers love Nature Briefing
• How Nature Portfolio Authors balance life and research
• Making an impact: Nature Portfolio authors on their most influential articles
• Behind the results: Nature Portfolio authors speak about the unseen efforts underlying their research
• Nature Portfolio authors explain how inclusion and diverse perspectives strengthen their research
• Insider perspectives: What authors really think about publishing in Nature Reviews
• How Scientific Reports supports research careers
• What does it mean to be part of Nature Portfolio? We ask Scientific Reports authors
• The open access advantage: Real stories from multidisciplinary Scientific Reports authors
• Scientific Reports: Your hub for global discovery

What difference does your research make beyond academia? For many researchers, this question is becoming increasingly important. While citations remain a key benchmark, there is growing emphasis on how research contributes to real-world challenges — informing decisions, shaping policy, and supporting progress towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

Our 2025 SDG Impact Report 'From publications to policy' provides new insight into this shift. Based on analysis of more than 19 million policy documents, the report shows that SDG-related policies cite academic research significantly more often than non-SDG policies. The findings suggest that research aligned with global challenges is not only more visible, but more likely to be used. 

To understand how this works in practice, and to explore practical ways of strengthening research-to-policy connections, we spoke with Dr. Wang Yan, a senior education policy expert in China. 

How research feeds into policymaking in China 

China provides a useful example of how research can be embedded within policymaking systems. By 2022, China had achieved the world’s highest average citation impact for SDG-related research, reflecting both the scale of its output and its influence in academia. As Dr. Wang explains, this reflects a deliberately structured approach to policymaking, in which research plays a foundational role: 

“I have previously described the policymaking cycle in China as having five steps. The process begins with research. Within China’s education system, there are dedicated research organisations embedded within the Ministry of Education system… These institutes conduct research before policymaking begins.” 

This cycle moves through stages including international comparison, stakeholder consultation, pilot testing, and policy implementation. At each stage, evidence is used to inform decisions and refine direction. As Dr. Wang explains, “research is therefore an integral part of the policymaking process.”  

Rather than being applied after policies are developed, research helps shape their direction from the outset, influencing both what is prioritised and how solutions are tested. 

Creating pathways from research to policy 

One way to strengthen links between research and policymaking is through dedicated forums that bring researchers and decision-makers together. 

Dr. Wang provides an example of this — the 2025 G20 Education Dialogue in Beijing. Bringing together policymakers, researchers, and institutional leaders, the event was designed to translate research into actionable insights. Dr. Wang describes the Dialogue as “a structured mechanism for the research-policy process.” 

Discussions focused on areas such as Climate Action (SDG 13) and Quality Education (SDG 4), combining empirical research with practical examples from institutions and schools. 

Importantly, the outputs were designed to feed directly into policymaking. As Dr. Wang explains: 

“Formal outcomes, including a comprehensive conference summary and a dedicated policy advisory report, were synthesised from the discussions and formally submitted to the Ministry of Education to inform national decision-making.” 

Forums like this help ensure that research is not only discussed, but translated into outputs that can be directly used in policymaking. 

The role of collaboration between researchers and policymakers 

Closer collaboration between researchers and policymakers can further strengthen the use of evidence, particularly when it is built into the way policymaking systems operate. 

In China, this is supported through secondments, where researchers work within the Ministry of Education. This enables them to contribute directly to policymaking while bringing academic perspectives into government processes.  

Dr. Wang notes that “in doing so, they brought a research element into the policymaking process by providing analytical insights into daily administration work.” 

Collaboration is also reflected in how research priorities are set.  As Dr. Wang explains, the research themes are decided jointly with the Ministry of Education. 

By combining direct involvement in policymaking with shared priority-setting, these approaches help ensure that research is closely aligned with policy needs – making it more likely that findings are taken up in practice. 

Why access to research matters for policy impact 

Accessibility is a critical factor in determining whether research can inform policy. 

The report shows that open access (OA) research reaches policy audiences nearly 300 days faster than non-OA work and is cited more frequently in policy documents. This demonstrates how publishing choices can influence the reach and use of research. 

For Dr. Wang, this is also a question of equity: “In the SDG framework, knowledge is explicitly recognised as a global public good. Yet the traditional subscription-based publishing model effectively privatises that knowledge, creating a ‘knowledge divide’ that runs counter to the principle of leaving no one behind.” 

Limited access can prevent policymakers and practitioners from engaging with relevant evidence. As Dr. Wang notes, “evidence can only inform policy if policymakers and the institutions that advise them can actually access it,” highlighting how access directly shapes whether research can be used in practice. 

Positioning research for real-world use 

Before research informs policy, it is usually interpreted, synthesised and adapted. 

Through her work with international organisations such as the World Bank and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Dr. Wang has seen how this process often extends beyond national systems, requiring coordination across institutions, regions and policy contexts. 

The report also highlights the role of intermediary organisations, including think tanks, NGOs, and international agencies. These organisations act as knowledge brokers, translating academic research into formats that policymakers can use, and as Dr. Wang’s experience suggests, this translation step is critical. Research is more likely to inform policy when it is presented in ways that policymakers can engage with and apply, particularly in multi-stakeholder and international contexts. 

In practice, impact is shaped not only by what is published, but by how it is communicated. Outputs that are clear, concise, and aligned with policy needs are more likely to be used. Shorter formats such as policy briefs or advisory summaries are often what enable research to move into decision-making contexts. 

Supporting research impact in policy 

Drawing on the findings of this case study, researchers can take several practical steps to strengthen the policy relevance of their work: 

• Focus on usability: Present findings in ways that are clear and actionable for non-academic audiences  
• Support open access: Openly accessible research is more likely to be used in policy contexts  
• Align with global priorities: Framing work within SDG-related challenges can increase relevance  
• Engage with intermediaries: Collaborating with think tanks and similar organisations can extend reach  
• Participate in policy-focused forums: These create opportunities to connect research with decision-making 

From research to impact 

As this case study illustrates, the lesson from China is clear: research has the greatest impact when the pathways to policy are clear, structured and intentional. 

From structured policymaking processes to dedicated forums and closer collaboration between researchers and government, these examples show how evidence can be positioned to inform decision-making more effectively. 

For researchers, this underlines the importance of not only producing high-quality work, but also ensuring it is accessible and aligned with policy needs. When research is openly available and communicated in ways that support real-world use, it is far more likely to contribute to meaningful progress across the Sustainable Development Goals. 

Explore the full findings in our 2025 SDG Impact Report.
 

Dr. Wang Yan, Senior Specialist, Academy of Regional and Global Governance, Beijing Foreign Studies University.

In her previous role, Dr. Yan was Education Network Coordinator of APEC Human Resource Development Working Group from 2015 to 2022. She has over 20 years of professional experiences in the field of education policy and administration at national and international level, working with Chinese governments as well as UNESCO, World Bank, Unicef, G20 and providing intellectual strategic and operational leadership, helping to meet regional and global development needs through strategic planning, policy reforms and education innovation.
  
She has led the drafting, revision and finalization of APEC Education Strategy 2030, the first mid- and long-term plan for education development in the sphere of APEC as well as G20 Education Dialogue, a platform for education exchange for policymakers, researchers and practitioners in G20 members. She has authored, co-authored and edited numerous articles, reports, journal and books on various educational topics including groundbreaking works Education Policy Reform Trends in G20 Members as well as Research, Policymaking and Innovation: Teacher and Education Development in the Belt and Road Countries.
  
She has been selected as one of 20 thought-leaders on the future of education and learning by UNESCO for her contribution to the study on 21st century competencies and skills. She holds a Ph.D. of education policy, administration and social studies from the University of Hong Kong, a Master of Educational Economics and Administration and a first degree in English Literature.

Related content:

• How Chinese research is shaping global SDG policy 
• Can open access help SDG research achieve greater impact? 
• How SDG research drives policy: A special report 
• What can institutions learn from a systems approach to sustainability transformation?
• White paper: Open for impact - China’s gold open access boosting global innovation and supporting the Global South

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

Staying informed as a researcher has never been easier, or harder. New papers, alerts, policy updates, funding calls and general news arrive daily, often all competing for attention at the same time. For many researchers, the challenge isn’t access to information but deciding what’s worth their limited time. That is where trust becomes essential: when time is limited, researchers need a source that helps them focus on what matters.

From feedback from Nature Briefing readers, one thing is clear: the researchers who feel most on top of science aren’t reading everything. They’re choosing carefully,  and finding small ways to make keeping up feel lighter, more curious and even joyful. 

Get Nature Briefing in your inbox 

Join researchers worldwide who start their day with a trusted filter for the most important science stories, curated by Nature editors. 
What you’ll get: 

• A quick, readable daily roundup that saves you time 
• Context and clarity, not just headlines 
• Breadth across disciplines to spark new ideas 

It’s also free to sign up. 

“Nature Briefing is the only email I NEVER delete without reading.” 

– AU Daniels, Prof. Emeritus for Experimental Surgery, University of Basel Faculty of Medicine

Small moments of joy in a busy research day

Several readers describe a familiar pattern: scanning inboxes quickly, bookmarking articles they never return to, and feeling quietly behind despite constant information intake. 

What they’re looking for isn’t volume, it’s filtering. A way to understand what matters today without needing to track dozens of sources themselves. 

Readers frequently describe the Briefing as a solution because it does something subtly different: it makes keeping up feel easy and enjoyable. Stories are selected, summarised and framed clearly, so readers can take in key developments quickly, without the nagging sense that they should be reading everything. 

“I enjoy the usually gentle humour and generally upbeat tone of the Nature Briefing!  It is not always easy to be a scientist these days [but], the Briefings make it a little more fun to BE an active scientist.”

– Anonymous reader  

Enough context to understand, with freedom to go deeper 

A recurring theme in reader feedback is appreciation for how summaries are written. 

Rather than offering a headline and a link, the Briefing gives enough information to understand why a story matters. That means readers can decide, quickly and confidently, whether it’s something they want to explore further. That confidence comes not only from clarity, but from knowing the selection has been curated by Nature editors. 

Some readers note that this makes it easier to stay broadly informed even when their own work is demanding or highly specialised. Others mention that it helps them step outside their discipline without feeling lost or overloaded. 

In short, the Briefing acts as a starting point, not a destination, which is exactly what many time‑constrained researchers want. 

“Like everyone, I receive Avogadro’s number of emails every day, many devoted to science news. Nature Briefing is my favorite, and I always look forward to reading it.” 

— Anonymous reader

A habit that fits real research lives

Another pattern emerges in how readers describe when they read Nature Briefing. 

For many, it’s part of a routine: first thing in the morning, with a coffee, or as a quiet moment before the day’s work begins. Because it’s concise and predictable, it doesn’t feel like another demand, it feels manageable. 

Over time, that consistency matters. Readers say they’ve stopped opening most emails automatically, but they continue to make space for Nature Briefing because it respects their time.

Staying informed without burning out 

Across disciplines and career stages, readers express relief at finding a way to stay connected to science without feeling constantly behind. 

In an environment that rewards constant output and attention, small design choices, like clarity, tone, and brevity, can make a meaningful difference. For many readers, Nature Briefing offers a way to engage with science that feels manageable and trustworthy. It can even reconnect them with what they liked about research in the first place.

Nature Briefing is the only news I am opening these days. It’s a life saver. I always forward an article or two to family and friends.”

— Anonymous reader

Get Nature Briefing in your inbox 

Join researchers worldwide who start their day with trusted, curated science updates from Nature Briefing. Sign up here.

Related Content

• Trusted, readable, human: why researchers love Nature Briefing 
• How Nature Portfolio Authors balance life and research  
• Making an impact: Nature Portfolio authors on their most influential articles  
• Behind the results: Nature Portfolio authors speak about the unseen efforts underlying their research  
• Nature Portfolio authors explain how inclusion and diverse perspectives strengthen their research  
• Insider perspectives: What authors really think about publishing in Nature Reviews  
• How Scientific Reports supports research careers  
• What does it mean to be part of Nature Portfolio? We ask Scientific Reports authors  
• The open access advantage: Real stories from multidisciplinary Scientific Reports authors

Publishing in a developing field can feel challenging, especially when your research topic is so current that the perfect journal doesn’t exist yet. This blog explores how collections provide a flexible publishing option, helping you reach readers interested in new developments in emerging areas and connect with fellow experts in your area.

“Collections are really important for us because it's a way to offer researchers a home for their research, where we currently don't have the perfect journal for it. And oftentimes those are trending topics where it's just too soon to have a journal available on such a current or emerging topic.”

― Daniel Korany, EVP Journals, Full Open Access Brands 

Collections bring together articles around a shared theme or research question. That means your work appears in a context that helps readers understand why it matters and how it connects to other developments in the field. If you work in fast-moving or less established areas, that added context can make it easier for the right audience to find and engage with your research.  

Here’s what that means in practice for you:

• Create space for emerging topics. 
• Give multidisciplinary research a clearer home. 
• Make it easier for readers to discover related work in one place. 
• Help early career researchers become more visible. 

Watch this short video featuring Springer Nature experts to hear how collections help create a home for fast-moving topics.

“We want to be able to react fast to trends in research, and collections are a great way of reacting faster than launching a journal.” 

― Daniel Korany, EVP Journals, Full Open Access Brands

Why flexibility matters in fast-moving fields

Emerging research areas do not always fit neatly into traditional publishing structures. A flexible route matters because it lets the publishing format reflect how knowledge is developing. Instead of waiting for a field to become established enough to support a dedicated journal, you can contribute to a collection that captures the topic while it is still taking shape. 

This can be particularly useful when a topic is attracting growing attention but does not yet have a clear journal home. Collections help create a focal point for the field by bringing related work together in one place. That makes it easier for readers to follow developments and helps researchers contribute to the conversation while the area is still evolving.

• They help define and spotlight growing areas of research. 
• They create a focal point before a dedicated journal exists. 
• They make it easier for readers to follow new developments. 
• They let researchers contribute while a field is still taking shape. 

“Collections offer an excellent opportunity to ensure one’s research contributes directly to a specific, impactful conversation, reaching the very people who can act on it. It’s about getting the work in front of the right audience, not just the biggest one.”

― Megha Rao, Research Fellow for the Thanzi Labwino (Better Health) project

Helping the right readers find your work

Visibility is not only about where your article is published. It is also about how easily people can find it, understand why it is relevant, and connect it to a wider topic. Collections help create that context by grouping related articles around emerging themes, making it easier for engaged readers to discover research they are already looking for. 

Collections are curated by topic experts and supported by Springer Nature’s editorial and research integrity processes, so researchers can benefit from visibility without compromising on trust.

As Petia Apostolova, Head of Collections at Springer Nature points out “We’ve seen the numbers to back this up, collection articles receive 31% more citations, 30% more downloads, and 63% higher Altmetric scores compared to articles published outside of collections.”

While every research journey is different, the principle is straightforward: when your work is easier to discover and connected to an active topic area, it has a better chance of reaching the right audience.

• Readers can find your work more easily. 
• Your article is connected to a clear topic area. 
• Visibility is supported by trusted editorial processes. 
• Your research can gain more attention from the right audience. 

If you’re interested in publishing your work in a collection, check out our dedicated Springer Nature collections website, where you can find interviews with guest editors, impact case studies, author success stories, and much more. 

Related Content

• Inside the author experience: what collection authors say and what to expect 
• Safeguarding Springer Nature collections: the integrity checks you should know about 
• Publishing to a Collection: Impact for Early Career Researchers 
• Publishing to reach policymakers: Springer Nature Collections 
• How Springer Nature Collections power SDG research 
• How Publishing in a Collection Ensured Malaria Control Guidance Reached Policymakers 
• Get your research in front of the audiences that matter

As artificial intelligence (AI) transforms every part of research (how it’s done, reviewed, and governed), research institutions across Europe are working to understand what these changes mean for institutional policy, governance structures, and long‑term strategy. To explore what these shifts mean at an institutional level, we spoke with Dr. Carles Sierra, Director of the Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA_CSIC), and member of the Springer Nature European Research Advisory Council (ERAC), about his views on AI’s implications for the research ecosystem.

First, a word about ERAC. To help explore these (and other) issues, Springer Nature’s Research Advisory Councils (RACs) bring together leaders from across the global research ecosystem to explore these challenges. Within this network, ERAC looks at the pressures and opportunities facing European institutions as AI becomes an integral part of research workflows.

We wanted to talk to Dr. Sierra, because he brings a unique outlook on AI in research, as someone who is both an ERAC member as well as an academic AI researcher. With deep experience in both the foundations of AI and its real‑world implications for research and publishing, Carles offers research institutions a valuable perspective on how AI is reshaping science and where institutional leadership and preparation will matter most next.

Human agency in AI-supported research

Dr. Sierra’s role gives him a holistic view of AI in research, and in publishing. He notes that “AI will influence all phases of the research process from hypothesis generation to code generation, to simulation execution, to data collection, and analysis, and even to the writing of scientific papers.” 

From this perspective, Dr. Sierra sees a host of interrelated issues that research institutions need to actively address. The common thread tying these concerns together is the need for institutions to ensure that humans drive the AI, rather than allowing automated systems to shape research practices unchecked.

Essentially, AI should serve science and researchers and making sure that happens requires intentionally centring humans across all phases of the research cycle. Dr. Sierra says, “Human agency must remain at the centre of the process. Decisions should ultimately be taken by humans, and the outputs of AI systems must always be critically evaluated by scientists.”

But keeping humans in charge means that humans need to know how to be in charge. “It is therefore essential to educate researchers about both the possibilities and the limitations of these technologies.” Consequently:

1. Researchers need to know how these models work
2. Researchers and leaders need to be aware of model biases
3. Researchers will need multiple perspectives, and only multidisciplinary teams can give those perspectives

Building AI literacy as an institutional capability

Dr. Sierra says, “Researchers need stronger education and training in AI if they are to adapt their methods… that in many cases have been followed for decades or even centuries… They need to develop at least a good understanding of how these algorithms work and how the AI systems have been trained. It is also important to recognise that some AI systems are not fully reliable and require strong human supervision. AI systems do not have agency, intentions, or moral responsibility.” 

While this applies to researchers at all career stages, institutions play a key role in deciding where, when, and how this education is embedded. For institutions, the best opportunity to build this capability is early, embedding AI literacy into training and development at the start of researchers’ careers. Dr. Sierra said, “Early-career researchers in all fields should acquire a solid understanding of artificial intelligence. It will soon be very difficult to imagine meaningful research in almost any discipline without some familiarity with AI tools and methods.”

Institutional governance and ethical AI leadership

Safeguarding human values in the development and deployment of AI models is increasingly an institutional responsibility. Key questions include: How do we continue to develop and train AI systems and models in ethical ways? How do we make certain we have policies to ensure ethical AI use? These questions actually form the core of Dr. Sierra’s own work, and from that perspective, he says, “We must continue investing not only in the application of AI but also in the science of AI itself… From a scientific perspective, we still need to improve the foundations of AI itself. Important challenges include reducing biases in training data, improving the reasoning capabilities of AI systems, and ensuring that increasingly autonomous systems behave in reliable and ethically acceptable ways.”

From a policy perspective, “Research leaders play a key role in promoting reflection on the responsible use of AI in science. This includes encouraging open discussion, establishing clear institution‑wide guidelines for researchers, investing in AI tools that can accelerate scientific progress, and maintaining close oversight of the ethical implications of these technologies.”

Why multidisciplinary collaboration matters more with AI

Training the models inevitably incorporates various biases into them; not only impacting social biases, but biases that could affect their scientific output. The researchers using these tools need to understand how these biases could affect the output they get from them, to recognise and correct for these biases. Doing this effectively will require institutions to enable collaboration across and between disciplines. Multidisciplinary teams will become more critical, and institutions will need to create the conditions that allow these teams to thrive. Dr. Sierra: “Perhaps the most important competence researchers will need in the future is the ability to work effectively in collaborative teams, combining different types of knowledge and technological expertise… Another important trend is the increasing importance of multidisciplinary teams. Complex scientific problems require collaboration across different areas of expertise, and the boundaries between disciplines are becoming less rigid.”

AI in scholarly publishing, peer review, and evaluation

There are also implications for scientific publishing, spanning everything from writing research to even new ways of publishing it, to research assessment, findability, accessibility, and more. Part of this can involve re-imagining the research article. Dr. Sierra has been collaborating with Springer Nature for several years on the possibility of something called “liquid publications, where scientific documents would have a dynamic digital life. Sections of a paper could be refined, recombined, or adapted for different audiences and purposes.” Well-trained AI could help make a vision like this a reality. 

Beyond that, AI can help lubricate many of the friction points in scientific publishing. Dr. Sierra said, “We discussed the possibility of using AI tools to assist in the assessment of research and how such tools might be integrated into publishers’ workflows. At the same time, we considered what kind of ethical guidelines should be established for the responsible use of AI in the publication process. Overall, there was a shared sense that the way we write, review, and evaluate scientific publications may need to be reconsidered quite urgently.”

Addressing these challenges requires sustained, strategic collaboration between research institutions and publishers, particularly around evaluation practices, incentives, and research integrity frameworks. Dr. Sierra again: “Publishers should listen carefully to the academic community, which is responsible for producing scientific knowledge and advancing research practices. They should observe which practices are emerging and which ones are proving successful. At the same time, publishers should pay attention to the ethical committees and governance structures within academic institutions. Conversely, research institutions also need to understand the pressures and incentives that shape authors’ behaviour, particularly in relation to evaluation and career progression.”

Springer Nature is already addressing some of this by implementing AI tools for research integrity; you can read more about those here.

What to watch next for AI and research support

We’re now at the point where AI’s risks and rewards have come closer, into sharper focus, but the picture is still not quite complete. And as regards AI and research, researchers, librarians, publishers, and funders are all contributing to completing that picture. All of these stakeholders are participating, and they’re all important. 

As research institutions rethink how they approach, use, and govern AI, Springer Nature continues to offer tools, insights, and guidance to support informed institutional decision‑making. You’ll see more perspectives on AI in scholarly communications, including last year’s Perspectives on AI in Scholarly Communications, here on The Link.

About Carles Sierra

Carles Sierra is Director and Research Professor at the Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA‑CSIC), one of Europe’s leading centres for AI research. He is also an Adjunct Professor at Western Sydney University and a Fellow of EurAI and ELLIS. A prominent figure in multi‑agent systems, agreement technologies, and computational trust, he has authored hundreds of scientific publications, and his work has received 20,000+ citations. Sierra has held major leadership roles, including President of EurAI and Editor‑in‑Chief of the Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. He has also chaired leading AI conferences such as AAMAS 2009, IJCAI 2011, and IJCAI 2017. His contributions have been recognised with top honours including the ACM/SIGAI Autonomous Agents Research Award and the IJCAI and EurAI Distinguished Service Awards. Sierra also leads AIHUB.CSIC, a network of 400+ AI researchers within CSIC, and works extensively on socially aligned and responsible AI.

Related content

• AI in research and publishing: What institutions need to know from KRAF 2025
• Research integrity in the age of open access and AI: The view from France
• CINCEL libraries explore the opportunities and risks of AI in research support
• Exploring AI with research librarians at Charleston
• Exploring AI futures in libraries with the Futurescape Workshop community

Don't miss the latest news & blogs, subscribe to The Link Alerts!

What does it take for research systems to function effectively in a crisis? For academic institutions and global health organisations, the 2014 Ebola outbreak remains a defining example of how evidence, communication, and community trust must work together, often in real time. The firsthand experience of frontline clinicians continues to shape today’s research practices, information infrastructures, data needs, and preparedness strategies. 

We spoke with Dr. Marta Lado, an infectious disease specialist and Director Clinical Programs in Partners in Health, Sierra Leone about how she distilled these lessons into Ebola Virus Disease: A Manual for EVD Management. Her book captures the practical insights she and her colleagues gained while responding to the outbreak, offering guidance that extends well beyond Ebola to other emerging diseases. She shared with The Link the experiences that informed the manual and how she came to play a central role in the 2014 response.

In 2014, Dr. Marta Lado began what she thought was to be a 1-year sabbatical in Sierra Leone. But that was also the year of the Ebola outbreak that struck Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea. As an infectious disease specialist, fighting that outbreak changed her 1-year sabbatical into a 10-year mission.

This experience became the basis of her book, Ebola Virus Disease: A Manual for EVD Management, in which she recounts the hard-won lessons from fighting one of the world’s deadliest viruses. For organisations supporting global health research, the manual demonstrates how lived experience can be translated into structured, shareable, and actionable knowledge during a global crisis.

Confronting fear and misinformation during the Ebola outbreak

Outbreaks of novel diseases, especially highly lethal ones, challenge communities, especially when the healthcare system is poorly funded. Fear and lack of information can make managing the situation difficult for public health authorities and healthcare providers. “There are many challenges when a new disease comes into a community, especially with a high mortality rate. There is a lot of reluctance, especially in countries where the healthcare system is not very well funded,” Dr. Lado says.

The absence of clear, trusted information exposes a critical challenge for research support teams: how to deliver reliable, usable evidence at speed, often before formal guidance is fully established.

This challenge reflects a broader issue: during crises, the effectiveness of research depends not only on the quality of evidence, but on how clearly and quickly it is communicated and supported institutionally. As explored previously, sustained investment in clear communication structures and institutional backing can significantly influence how research findings are understood, trusted, and acted upon during periods of uncertainty.

Early messaging described Ebola as untreatable and almost always fatal, creating panic and distrust. Restrictions on funerals and isolation deepened grief and suspicion among communities. “People saw others going to hospitals and never returning,” recalls Dr. Lado. This led to many hiding symptoms or simply avoiding care, thinking death was inevitable. 

The initial response focused on breaking the chain of transmission. That meant that every new infection required quarantine, which can be hard on both the patient and the patient’s family. “We had to make them understand isolation doesn’t mean abandonment,” Dr. Lado stressed.

Building trust through communication and community engagement 

In 2021, after the vaccine effective for the Zaire strain of Ebola was approved, trust grew and people started coming to get vaccinated. “We used ring vaccination, whenever we have a case of Ebola, we vaccinate all the ring contacts, household contacts and people from the community, almost everyone. People come voluntarily and it is a huge success. This means that people do engage more when they understand the disease.”  For organisations supporting research and public health policy, these experiences underline the importance of aligning evidence generation with communication and community engagement as part of research design.

Dr. Lado says that mistrust often stems from lack of information, past negative experiences, and fear of the unknown. In places like North Kivu, repeated outbreaks eventually led to better preparedness and community acceptance. Unless sensitisation and education happen alongside medical intervention, people may refuse vaccines, hide symptoms, and avoid treatment centres. 

Standard intervention like optimized supportive care: IV fluids, Oxygen therapy, treating co-infections, blood products when needed were simple to implement and managed to save countless lives. “People were able to return to their communities and explain the positive side of the experience. They could say ‘I was extremely sick, I was in a coma for a week, but they took care of me. There were always people around me dressed up like astronauts, but they did give me the medication I needed and took good care of me," Dr. Lado explains.

Dr. Lado also learned that even the best medical technology won’t work without patient and community trust, and good communication. These lessons have led to a rethinking of treatment centres and practices, resulting in new treatment centres often built separately from hospitals, and with transparency in mind. Transparency and communication also means that community leaders can come to learn about the procedures, and there is a respect for practices like dignified burials. 

Lessons in compassion: Balancing protocols with humanity

For Dr. Lado, the Ebola outbreak changed how medicine is understood and practiced in emergency settings. “It taught me that not all answers are already written down. Sometimes, we need to create them,” she explained. For novel situations, experts don’t already have the answers, but they have the tools, including the scientific method combined with past expertise, to find them. Conducting research during a humanitarian crisis was incredibly difficult, but Dr. Lado and her colleagues managed to do it progressively, building new knowledge as they responded and writing it down in her manual for Ebola virus disease management.

And remembering that every patient is a person, with hopes, and fears, and family is incredibly important. While protocols are essential, without empathy and clear communication, they can feel harsh, especially to families facing loss. Resistance to rules often comes from grief, not ignorance, and understanding the cultural and emotional contexts is vital.

“Of course, we all understand the rationality of what we need to do in times of a health crisis, but at the end of the day, it’s your son. Are you telling me I can’t hug him, feed him, or be with him? Or it’s your mother who died, and you’re not even allowed to say goodbye. That’s the kind of grief people were facing, and it’s not easy to accept.”

The experience reinforced that effective outbreak response must balance medical urgency with human dignity, ensuring that people feel seen, heard, and supported.

How Ebola transformed emergency response systems

Structured emergency response systems were built from scratch, with clear pillars such as case management, laboratory coordination, infection prevention and control, community sensitisation, and operations, each with designated responsibilities. They quickly became essential for managing outbreaks. “For me, this is the greatest achievement. Despite challenges in different areas, the planning and structure of our system is now effective and straightforward,” Dr. Lado added. Thanks to this foundation, Sierra Leone was able to respond better to subsequent health crises like Covid-19 and Mpox. 

Global cooperation and innovation after Ebola

In terms of the evolution of global health and outbreak response, Dr. Lado mentioned two important shifts. First, there’s a growing awareness that no country is isolated, and outbreaks in one region can quickly affect others, making international cooperation and preparedness essential. For organisations across the research and innovation ecosystem, this shift reinforces the need for cross-border data sharing, interoperable systems, and open access to validated research during emergencies.

Second, the lessons from Ebola helped shape better case management protocols, including early supportive care and the use of portable critical units. Along with effective vaccines and monoclonal antibody treatments for the Zaire strain, these developments had an impressive impact. “They can reduce the mortality from 80% to even 30% when combined with optimized supportive care. The problem is now in areas with other strain, like Sudan and Marburg,” Dr. Lado explained.

However, the experience with Zaire Ebola has laid the foundation for research and testing therapies during emergencies. This progress is now helping the development of vaccines and treatments for other strains of the virus, with hope for similar breakthroughs soon.

From crisis to innovation in Ebola treatment and research

A central takeaway from Dr. Lado’s work and her book is the importance of patient-centred care during outbreaks. Written at a time when no formal guidelines existed, the manual captures how frontline experience can be translated into practical, evidence‑based approaches. Its message remains highly relevant today: effective treatment places the patient at the centre, while ensuring that healthcare workers are equipped to deliver safe, high‑quality care, even in crisis conditions.

Dr. Lado’s reflections reveal a deep commitment to transforming global health through equity and compassion. “Healthcare should be a right, not a privilege. That’s the goal I’m working toward,” she explained. Her mission is to narrow the gap between healthcare systems in low‑ and high-income countries. “When people need care, we must find ways to make it available,” she added.

Today, her work extends beyond clinical practice to include policy development and health system strengthening. Drawing on lessons from Ebola and other diseases, she continues to advocate for resilient systems that can respond effectively across contexts. “At the end of the day, healthcare is healthcare. We need to build systems that work for everyone, whether we’re dealing with Ebola, HIV, or TB,” Dr. Lado said. Her aim is to ensure that no community is left behind when the next outbreak occurs.

For those supporting research planning and delivery, these lessons highlight the importance of prioritising equity and access early on, particularly in emergency‑driven research. 

Dr. Lado’s experiences are explored in greater detail in her book, Ebola Virus Disease: A Manual for EVD Management. Further perspectives on how knowledge has evolved over time are available in our virtual museum, When the Shelf Went Digital… 20 Years of Springer Nature eBooks.

WHO declares Ebola emergency

In line with Springer Nature’s established approach to supporting the sharing of research during public health emergencies, we are making a broad body of recent and relevant Ebola research freely available to support the global response to the current outbreak.

Click here to access free Ebola research.

Related content

• A decade of change: How the IMISCOE–Springer Nature partnership is shaping migration research
• A short history of messenger RNA vaccines’ long road
• eBook collections: Charting 20 years of innovation and evolution
• From evangelist to essential: A librarian’s eBook journey
• Twenty years of eBooks: How libraries turned a quiet shift into a global revolution in digital access
• Strengthening global health with advanced nursing resources

Don't miss the latest news & blogs, subscribe to The Link Alerts!

Editors and editorial board members (EBMs) for Springer journals come from the community of publishing researchers. And because they are, these journal editors typically act as advocates for article authors, working hard to get submissions reviewed in a timely fashion, helping improve the manuscripts, and mediating polarised reviewer opinions. And, a lot of this work takes place behind the scenes, largely invisible to most journal authors. So, it’s time we try to make some of these efforts more visible. Understanding what editors actually do — and what motivates them — can change the way authors approach the publishing process.

Revealing what journal editors do

Springer journal editors are volunteers (although some do receive modest stipends) whose main work — like their authors’ — is in research. Editors-in-Chief typically recruit editors and EMBs from among researchers whose work they know. This means that editors and EBMs are actively contributing research to their communities, so they’re familiar both with current research as well as with journals from the authors’ perspective. 

What these editors do, mainly, is working to facilitate publication of new research; not mainly to gate-keep. They do want to assure that published work is of high enough quality; but that’s to support ongoing work in the community, not simply to artificially keep things out.

These researchers volunteer their time to help shepherd research from, and for, their communities to publication. The 2,700 Springer journals tend to focus on specific discipline communities, so the work these editors do directly supports their own colleagues and communities; that’s one of the reasons why this work is so important to them

While this is one of the most highly valued tasks, editors find it the most challenging. Finding reviewers — especially the right reviewers — is hard, and getting harder as submission volume grows. 49% of Springer editors polled cited this as their biggest frustration (possibly even more than keeping reviewers prompt in completing their reviews). So, authors should know that the effort these editors invest behind the scenes is more than just significant.

How editors help improve articles

Editors do more than process peer review and accept or reject (although that process is both critical and difficult — see more below). They also actively work to help improve your article manuscript, to make it the best version of itself. Authors consistently describe editors’ input as transformative, and not just, “accept/reject/revise.” Across multiple years’ worth of author surveys, authors cite editorial advice as one of the most celebrated aspects of the publishing experience. They speak of editors who “spotted weak parts,” helped them “restructure and learn,” and demonstrated “great depth of information about the topic.” 

Reflecting on their experience working with the Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing, Haixin Zhao and Nilesh Madhu said,
 

“Our experience with this paper was extremely positive, with reviewers, editor and us engaging in a meaningful discussion during the review process. This led to a much stronger paper, as a whole, and also gave us new insights into how we could extend this work in future.”

This role as “development editor” — actively improving manuscripts — is a role that Springer journal editors take particular pride in. Improving submission quality is the number one new responsibility they would choose to take on. 

This means that when a journal editor sends a manuscript back to the author for revision, it’s not a meaningless request to make the author’s life more complicated; it’s meant to improve the final article. And improving the article can profoundly benefit the author, because a better article will have more impact, and that impact redounds back to the research, and to the author. (It also supports the journal as well, which is a win-win-win.)

How editors help support early career and first-time authors

Springer journal editors, with their community focus, are especially supportive of first-time and early career authors. Feedback from these authors consistently highlights how essential, and helpful, the personalised, human editorial communication they get from journal editors is to them. Editors help these authors navigate the publishing process for the first time, patiently guiding them “step by step,” and answering even basic questions about the process. This leaves these new authors feeling genuinely supported at a high-stakes moment early in their careers. 

And editors find this work fulfilling (although they sometimes don’t feel recognised for it — hopefully blogs like this one help rectify that). 77% of Springer journal editors feel that their journal recognises the value that they add.

How to work with an editor, not just “through” them

Knowing that your editor is a deeply engaged peer, rather than an administrator, is only useful if you act on it. A few things are worth bearing in mind:
 

• Respond to editorial feedback as a dialogue, not a verdict. Editors are not simply relaying reviewer comments — they’ve already filtered, interpreted, and often moderated those comments on your behalf. Their framing matters.
• Be specific about what you need. Editors who go beyond the call of duty tend to do so when authors give them something to work with. If a section of your manuscript has a known weakness, name it. You may find the response is more substantive than you’d expect.
• For early-career researchers especially, ask. The authors who describe their experience as formative are, almost universally, those who engaged. Questions that feel basic to ask are rarely basic to answer — and editors in this field have seen the full range.
• Understand that timelines often reflect workload, not indifference. Finding reviewers is the single biggest frustration cited by editors across the portfolio—a constraint that shapes timelines in ways that have nothing to do with the quality of your submission.

Editors’ human connection 

When we talk about journals, peer review, and scholarly communications, something gets lost. Among the talk of submission portals and peer review pain points, the relationship between author and editor, which is one of the most genuinely human interactions in scholarly publishing, can get lost in the noise. 

It’s worth realising that the intrinsic reward of the work itself, which includes engaging with emerging science, shaping the field, feeling the respect of peers, is what sustains most editors. And it’s worth approaching the relationship accordingly.

If you’re preparing to submit, or navigating the process for the first time, our author resources cover every stage—from choosing the right journal to responding to reviewers. 

Find out more about how to find the Springer journal that might fit your work best, and how to put your next submission together.

Related Content

• Springer: A legacy shaped with research communities 
• Starting your career? Here’s how Springer can help you publish open access
• The story of Springer’s first open access book

Your research relating to the Sustainable Development Goals contributes to academic knowledge that can impact the important work of policymakers, practitioners, and communities working to address urgent global challenges. In this post, we discuss how publishing your research as an article or as part of a collection at Springer Nature can give your work extended reach and impact. We also include a checklist to support you in getting started.

Publishing your work as a journal article or in a journal collection makes it available to a broad audience of academics, practitioners, and policymakers. For research relating to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), delivering timely, focused, and credible insights can contribute to shaping SDG policy. 

The article format: Why it works so well for SDG research 

The concise structure of an article gives the content clarity that allows policymakers, nongovernmental organisations, and researchers to understand and apply your findings. Journal articles are published and indexed rapidly, making their knowledge and insights discoverable and available.  

Those who work practically on evolving issues like climate resilience, poverty alleviation, gender equality, or sustainable cities, can get support from this knowledge and stay responsive. The peer review process that articles undergo lend the research rigour and authority that are important to influence decisions and shape interventions.  

And when your work is published with a publisher that actively supports and champions the SDGs, its reach and relevance become even more meaningful. Springer Nature is committed to amplifying SDG articles’ visibility, strengthening its credibility, and ensuring it contributes to the broader global effort toward a more sustainable and equitable future. 

Why publish your SDG research in a Springer Nature journal or collection? 

Springer Nature is committed to supporting SDG-related research and amplifying it across disciplines and sectors. We offer one of the world’s broadest portfolios for SDG-related research, spanning thousands of journals and specialist collections. Through the Springer Nature SDG Programme, we support SDG-related research and amplify it across disciplines and sectors.  

With more than one million SDG relevant articles and chapters published since the SDGs were introduced in 2015, and over 17 million citations for its SDG content, Springer Nature journals and collections offer a home for high quality research designed to create real world impact. Your work gains visibility among global research communities as well as the policymakers and practitioners who rely on evidence to drive the Goals forward. 

Springer Nature data show that publishing in collections leads to 31% more citations, 30% more downloads, and 63% higher Altmetrics scores than articles published outside of a collection. 

Making impact with your SDG research, in academia and policy 

A special report from 2025, titled ‘From publication to policy,’ examined the influence of published research on policies linked to the SDGs, as a signal of real-world impact on internationally agreed priorities. It showed that SDG research is not only growing in volume but also demonstrates higher academic impact.

SDG articles received higher average citations, Altmetric scores (indicating attention), and full-text downloads than non-SDG articles. But for the SDGs, impact beyond academia is central. The report shows that academic research is cited in SDG-related policy more often than in wider policy. Research is being used in policy and practice to support evidence, justify recommendations, or shape policy directions.  

“Our report shows that SDG research is being used well beyond academia, actively informing policy and real‑world decision‑making.” 
Nicola Jones, Director, Springer Nature SDG Programme 

For maximum reach for your SDG research, publish open access

The report also explored the influence of different publishing models, and found that publishing open access significantly enhances the societal impact of SDG-aligned research. By removing barriers to readership, your work becomes instantly accessible to policymakers, educators, nongovernmental organisations, and communities.  

Springer Nature supports the broadest possible dissemination of research central to sustainable development. Much of the SDG-related research published in Springer Nature is openly available for anyone to read. In 2025, 62% of Springer Nature’s SDG-related articles were published open access.  

How publishing in a collection can amplify your SDG research

A collection is a curated group of journal articles that focus on a specific theme or emerging topic, sometimes also known as a special issue. Springer Nature collections create a dynamic platform for authors working on similar research to share insights and discoveries. This affinity makes research more discoverable and relevant for related and interdisciplinary audiences. 

Many of these collections have an SDG-focus and engage with broad audiences that share an interest in the relevant SDGs. In 2025 alone, Springer Nature launched 2,180 SDG-related collections. 

Publishing in a collection is an effective way to increase the reach and relevance of your work, and to transform promising research into real-world impact. Curated by expert guest editors, SDG-focused collections bring together related research and make it easier for readers to discover and contextualise your article. The various Springer Nature collections that advance the SDGs highlight impactful research and attract readership. 

Just as importantly, publishing in a collection places your work within a carefully curated and trustworthy research environment, supported by expert editorial oversight and integrity safeguards that help uphold the quality, credibility, and relevance of the research it contains. That focus on quality is also reflected in author feedback: last year, 87% of authors were happy with their collections publishing experience. 

“Publishing in a collection has given this research much greater visibility, specifically because it showcases the real-world application in Malawi. This has acted as a powerful proof of concept. [...] Collections offer an excellent opportunity to ensure one’s research contributes directly to a specific, impactful conversation, reaching the very people who can act on it. It’s about getting the work in front of the right audience, not just the biggest one.” 
Megha Rao, Research Fellow for the Thanzi Labwino (Better Health) project 

Checklist: How to get started and publish your SDG article  

Identify which SDG(s) your work addresses.  

• Use Springer Nature’s SDG Programme page and its hubs dedicated to each of the SDGs to explore and identify topics. 

Select journals or collections aligned with your discipline and SDG topic. 

• Explore with the Journal Finder and consider SDG badges on journals that support the SDGs. 
• On Springer Nature Link, use the SDG filter to refine your search and identify journals or calls for papers for relevant collections.

Review the aims, scope, editorial policies, and submission requirements of relevant journals. 

• Check the collections and updates pages of journals of interest to explore calls for papers open to submissions.  
• If you can’t find a call for papers relevant to your work, consider proposing an SDG-related collection to the journal’s editor-in-chief.

Consider publishing open access to expand the visibility, reach, and policy engagement of your work.  

• Learn more about open access journals, and explore the glossary of terms to help you navigate the world of open access science. 
• Find out about funding availability for publishing open access.

 Highlight the SDG relevance of your article.  

• Alongside the usual priorities when preparing your manuscript, such as clarity and methodological rigour, make the connection to the relevant SDG(s) explicit, and where appropriate include policy analyses and practical recommendations.

 Extend visibility post publication.

• After publishing in a Springer Nature journal or collection, consider writing a ‘Behind the Paper’ post on Springer Nature’s Research Communities. This special glimpse behind the research is tagged with relevant SDGs on the Research Communities, further amplifying the reach of your work and the potential for building new connections.  

Springer Nature is committed to advancing progress on the SDGs by publishing high quality, impactful research and ensuring it reaches the audiences who can use it to drive change. Publish your SDG research in a Springer Nature journal or collection to support these efforts, and get our support to making your research count.  

Learn more about publishing in a Springer Nature journal or collection, including a step-by-step guide to walk you through the publication journey and information on open access publishing.  

Related content:

• Publish your SDG research as a Springer Nature book
• Can open access help SDG research achieve greater impact?
• How Springer Nature Collections power SDG research
• Why Discover journals are an ideal outlet for SDG-focused research

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

This Global Accessibility Awareness Day, UX Researcher and Generation Valuable mentee Gonzalo Gonzales shares his experience of the Valuable 500 initiative and the importance of small details when it comes to inclusion.

In December 2025, 500 organisations came together in Tokyo for the world’s first accountability summit on disability inclusion in business: SYNC25. As a mentee in Springer Nature’s Generation Valuable programme, I attended to share experiences with peers from across the Valuable 500: a global partnership that brings together companies to support disability inclusion. Generation Valuable is its reciprocal mentoring programme, pairing senior executives with disabled leaders.

Safety makes disclosure possible

My disclosure came a few months into my journey at Springer Nature. I had only received my diagnosis not long before joining, so I was still learning how to talk about it. I was also learning how to accept myself with this new part of me. The only reason I could be open that early was that the environment felt safe, and my manager was supportive.

Disability inclusion, by design

At the event, leaders spoke about disability inclusion as a strategy, by design, and about inclusion as something that shapes innovation and builds engagement. I went to SYNC25 to learn from different disabled and neurodivergent perspectives and share my experience as a neurodivergent mentee. I spoke about how my mentor at SN, Marc Spenlé, COO, helped me shape how I try to lead by putting authenticity at the centre of our relationship.

For me, mentorship is not magic. It is built on trust, listening, and clear objectives. It is also built around safety, which matters a lot to me as an autistic person.

From mentee to microphone

The day before I spoke at SYNC25, I barely enjoyed the beauty of Tokyo. I was too nervous about speaking in front of strangers on a very large, unfamiliar stage. My mentor, Marc, gave me three reminders that shaped my entire participation:

Be yourself.
Treat it as a learning experience.
Have fun, enjoy what you’re doing.

This advice fit our mentorship perfectly. Our relationship revolves around authenticity, mutual learning, and enjoying what we were experiencing. So, I used it. I scrawled my quite structured notes into a little notepad and got to the stage.

I shared part of my life story as a neurodivergent immigrant. For a long time, I assumed I felt “different” mainly because of cultural differences, but not completely; it was more undiagnosed autism and ADHD.

I also talked about how “be yourself” made me react defensively the first time I heard it during mentoring, as if it were easy. In my life, being myself often came with risk. I could be judged or excluded because of my social differences. So, like many neurodivergent people, I tend to mask to protect myself.

I still mask sometimes. I understand the cost, and I know not everyone understands neurodiversity. In contrast, I have started speaking up more, initiating conversations, and showing up as a whole person. I think it is easier to build safety when you build trust from the start.

Inclusion shows up in the small things

Networking is not fun for me. Being AuDHD (autism + ADHD), I crave connection, but I process social cues differently and I need more time to respond. Fast-paced situations can feel overwhelming.

But something small happened after my talk. People started approaching me. They shared personal stories, dinner, and their big projects for the future. I had never talked so casually with a CEO of a global firm before. I expected distance and formality. Instead, it was just a very human conversation.

He seemed genuinely moved by what I said, partly because he was the uncle of a young autistic child. He was kind, authentic, and open. That moment felt like a reflection of what I had just spoken about, and it mirrored the same safety, kindness, and respect I have been shown by my manager and my mentor.

Bringing it back to my day-to-day work

My day-to-day role is UX research in an educational digital product. I am not an accessibility specialist, and I am not an inclusion specialist. What I do understand much better now is how inclusion shows up in everyday work.

It shows up in who gets invited into conversations, whose perspectives carry more weight, and whether barriers are brushed aside as exceptions or treated as a sign that the way we do research is unintentionally excluding people.   

What I asked leaders to do

I closed my participation at SYNC25 by urging leaders not to be afraid to invest in disabled and neurodivergent talent. Disability is not a deficit. My disability has helped me shape how I lead in certain ways, but it is not my defining factor. I am a whole person. That is why I have recently taken on a mentoring role focused on neuroinclusion, to support leaders who want to reflect on how their interactions can include or exclude neurodivergent colleagues.

Treating people with respect, making accommodations ordinary tools for performance, and not excluding people unintentionally are the details that decide whether people feel safe enough to contribute fully.

One line I heard stayed with me: “Disclosure happens only when respect is guaranteed.” I have felt that respect from my manager and from so many of my colleagues at Springer Nature. It has shaped what I believe inclusion can look like, especially through mentorship, safety, and the details that help people thrive.

Peer review is a defining part of publishing: a chance to have your work stress tested by experts and strengthened before it reaches the wider community. After months of developing your paper and choosing a journal with care, that review period can feel like a pause, but it’s also where valuable, field-specific feedback can help move your research forward. Read on to hear how other researchers found the peer review process at Discover, so you know what to expect.

For many early career researchers (ECRs), the phrase “rigorous peer review” is meant to signal quality, and when the process is clear and constructive, it can do exactly that. But it’s not always easy to know what to expect: who will review your work, what kind of feedback will you receive, and how will the timeline unfold. The best experiences pair high standards with practical, actionable guidance and transparent communication, so you can improve your manuscript with confidence and keep moving.

Discover journals are built on a different premise: peer review should be a positive and constructive experience that significantly bolsters your research and professional growth. As part of Springer Nature's portfolio of over 600 fully open access (OA) journals, the 70+ Discover titles were created to improve how peer review works for authors, ensuring academic rigour and a supportive environment define our authors’ experience.   

What does rigour mean at Discover?

We address traditional publishing barriers such as opaque timelines and prestige bias by redefining rigour as follows: 

• Subject-specific expertise: we aim to find reviewers as closely matched as possible to your specialism, ensuring you get useful feedback 
• Actionable guidance: we routinely ask reviewers to provide feedback is structured to give authors clear, practical steps for improvement 
• Transparency: you can track your manuscript from submission through to decision, with real-time updates available in your author dashboard 
• Support: you will benefit from Springer Nature's established publishing systems, which ensure your work meets global ethical standards, receives expert editorial oversight, and is indexed upon publication. 

Rigour is one of four commitments, alongside representation, rapid publication, and wide-reaching impact, which ensure we provide an efficient path to publication for diverse researchers.

Want to hear what this looks like in practice? Watch the video below where our authors share real experiences of constructive, confidence-building peer review.

The Discover author experience

Our commitment to rigour is best reflected by the researchers around the world who have published with us. Here is how they describe their experience with us: 

Dr. Sara Causevic, a postdoctoral fellow at Stockholm University, published research in Discover Conservation on the use of AI and earth observation to protect forests. She describes the peer review process as rigorous but purposeful.

“The peer process was rigorous, but it was also very constructive. It pushed us to strengthen different sections of our paper, which were critical to ensure that our paper was still original and novel. Communication from the editorial team was clear throughout, and the paper moved from submission to publication in three to four months.” 

― Sara Causevic, Discover Conservation 

Constructive feedback, delivered on time

Rigorous feedback is essential, but it lands much better within a transparent and supportive environment. Enoch Leung, a researcher in inclusive education at McGill University, Canada, describes what sets Discover Education apart. For Enoch, the value wasn’t just in the speed, but in the tone of the exchange.

“We felt like we were all contributing to the success of our article, really incorporating the feedback and elevating the manuscript to the next level.” 

― Enoch Leung, Discover Education 

For Vicky Xu, a research associate at the University of Sydney, Australia, Discover Psychology’s visual timeline was central to making the review process less intimidating.  

Relevant feedback, professional standards 

Dr. Nasrin Sultana, of Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Bangladesh, needed a journal that offered relevant, high-quality review. After previous experiences where feedback felt disconnected from her research, she was pleased to find the Discover Electronics review committee came back with the specificity she was looking for. She adds, “Their comments were actually related to the work; it really helped me to improve the quality of my paper.” 

While Dr Sultana found the exact guidance she needed, Paul Awoyera, an associate professor at Prince Mohammed bin Fahd University, Saudi Arabia, also had a positive experience with the Discover Sustainability team. He described it as professional and efficient, and the work as “a collaborative experience rather than just a transactional one.” 

Good is good enough: why you shouldn’t wait for perfection

The researchers featured here share a consistent message for ECRs approaching peer review for the first time: do not avoid it. 

Sara Causevic is direct: peer review can sound harsh, but she advises embracing it regardless. Some of the greatest improvements to her paper came directly from reviewer feedback. “Don't fear the peer review process. Embrace it. It will improve your paper — and don't take it personally.” 

Enoch Leung notes that waiting to produce a perfect manuscript will mean missing the opportunity for a critical external assessment. He thinks that feedback is part of the process, not a verdict on it. Atique Ishrak Anik, at Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh, gives the best advice for anyone who might be feeling unsure about submitting: “peer review is not a criticism. It is a way to improve your work.”

Evaluating a journal: what to look for

Peer review is difficult to evaluate from the outside. When choosing a journal, ask: 

• Are reviewers matched precisely to your specialism? 
• Is feedback structured and actionable, or just generic? 
• Does the editorial team communicate clearly throughout the process, with defined timelines? 

Every Discover title strives to ensure the answer to each of these questions is a definitive yes. Qualified reviewers, constructive feedback, and transparent communication are how we operate. 

You’ve done the hard work. Rigorous peer review ensures that your good work is scrutinised by experts, improved by specific feedback, and supported by a process that keeps you informed throughout. 

That is the experience the researchers featured here had with Discover journals. And it is exactly what the series was designed to provide. This year also marks a milestone for the series: Discover Psychology, Discover Education, and Discover Sustainability, among several others, are turning five—and the stories shared above by authors from these title shows how we’re actively bringing that author experience to life across the series. 

If you want rigorous review without the guesswork, explore the Discover journal series, where defined timelines and clear editorial communication are part of the process. 

Featured research 

• Sara Causevic, Discover Conservation  
  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44353-024-00002-2

• Enoch Leung, Discover Education  
  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-022-00016-9 

• Nasrin Sultana, Discover Electronics 
  DOI: https://10.1007/s44291-024-00002-5 

• Vicky Xu, Discover Psychology  
  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00111-4 

• Paul Awoyera, Discover Sustainability  
  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00655-y 

• Atique Ishrak Anik, Discover Civil Engineering  
  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44290-024-00018-6

Related Content

• How authors found the right fit with Discover: a publishing home for every researcher 
• Discover journals: Open access funding options for our authors  
• Case study: How one collection led to real-world policy impact and academic recognition 
• The value of null results: How Discover champions inclusive science 
• Why Discover journals are an ideal outlet for SDG-focused research 
• Infographic | The benefits of publishing null results 
• More than just a number: How new impact factors help Discover authors 
• Discover collections: An effective approach for enhancing article impact 
• Responsive, inclusive, and reactive: Going behind the scenes at Discover 
• Inclusive, Global and Interdisciplinary: Discover journals break with tradition 
• Discover: A portfolio of inclusive, open access journals

This is the third blog post in a new series in which researchers share their experiences with open science practices, and reflect on the impact that sharing open data, code, and protocols can have.   

Johannes Köster is Professor for Bioinformatics and Computational Oncology at the Institute for AI and Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany. As author of the open-source workflow management system, Snakemake, and founder of the Bioconda project, Johannes Köster has extensive experience with open science practices and publishing, with Nature Portfolio articles including Applying the FAIR Principles to computational workflows (Scientific Data), Neoadjuvant nivolumab with or without relatlimab in resectable non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase 2 trial (Nature Medicine), and Bioconda: sustainable and comprehensive software distribution for the life sciences (Nature Methods).  

We asked Professor Köster to share his perspective as an advocate of data sharing and embracing open science in every area of research practice.

How did you first become interested in open science practices?  

I think it was early during my PhD thesis when my group was approached by another that did research in reproducibility and workflow management. They asked, ‘How does this apply to Bioinformatics, actually?’ At that time, we were using a very old but relevant tool to ensure reproducibility of our data analysis. 

Upon this request, we sat together and drafted ideas on how we could make this more ergonomic and convenient for bioinformaticians, such as workflow management, reproducibility, and so on. This is, of course, only a part of open science, but it was the part that drove me to the topic. We brainstormed a bit; I came up with an idea for a syntax and the others did too. I then kind of converged those three ideas into a prototype. That was Snakemake. 

I implemented that over a couple of days and refined it for about one year. Suddenly, it was so useful for the entire group. When we published it, it was immediately very useful for many others. This became quite important for my thesis. In principle, this is exactly what brought me to open science: reproducibility and thinking, ‘How can we actually make our data analysis more accessible to others?’ It’s not only about automation but about making this accessible and understandable. That is, for me, what open science is or should be about. 

What open science practices do you use? 

Whatever I'm involved in, I ensure we publish all the code and data whenever possible. With data, it sometimes depends. When we can, we rely entirely on open data that is also accessible to everybody. Sometimes, like for example in the Nature Medicine paper we published last year, it's not possible because it's German patient data and we are not allowed to just disclose it for everybody, but at least it's uploaded to a repository where you can ask for access. It's a bit more cumbersome than just hitting a button and automatically downloading everything, but this is the best we can do in such a case.  

Protocols are, for me, inside the code. We try to write code in a way that’s human readable, not just dumping some stuff that we run quickly for publication but making sure that it's also reusable and readable by others. This is, I think, an important aspect that is often not fully recognised by reviewers or journal editors. It’s nice that journals sometimes try to get people to publish those things along with the paper, which is already an improvement compared to before, but the quality of what is published matters as well, I think. For me, this is particularly important and a mission. 

What motivated you to adopt these practices?  

“It’s very important that code is seen as a primary research output.” 

  Johannes Köster, Institute for AI and Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany 

I think the true value, especially of the stuff that comes as auxiliary to the actual manuscript, lies in two things. First of all, I hope that it makes it easier for readers and reviewers to judge whether the work was valid, both from a methods perspective and a statistical perspective. Doing a data analysis is much more than what you usually read in the methods section of a manuscript, like ‘we applied a t-test’ [a statistical test that compares the means of two samples]. Often, it’s not even specified whether it was one-sided or two-sided, or what the exact thresholds were. For a t-test it’s easy, but there are much more complex methods, and all the parameters matter — how you filter the data matters, and so on. That level of detail you only see in the code. Therefore, I think it’s very important that code is seen as a primary research output. 

The other aspect is not about transparency or judgement, but I think people are reinventing the wheel all the time. Not so much in methods papers but in papers that analyse some big dataset. All the code is rewritten constantly because it wasn’t done in a way where you can actually reuse it and apply it to new datasets. I think this is the second big value of this approach: ideally, each publication is made of building blocks that can be used by others as well, at least in part. This is what we should all aim for because then people can concentrate on the actual big questions and don’t have to deal with all these technical difficulties every time. 

Have you ever faced any particular challenges or barriers in undertaking open science practices?  

There are quite a few barriers or challenges. One I mentioned already, especially as somebody who wants to use open data analyses by others, which is people don't take enough care in publishing and documenting those parts properly. In part, I think this is a matter of culture on the principal investigator (PI) level because they don't care so much how their postdocs or PhD students publish those parts, as long as they can ‘tick the box’. 

Another is for open access. The pricing is not always reasonable. It might be justified, but it's causing discrepancies or imbalances between countries and research groups. There are groups that have a lot of funding, and for them it's much easier to publish high impact because they can easily afford it. Also, there are countries where it's much easier to afford than other countries. That causes science to be a hierarchical system. That's a bad side effect of open access, I think, because everybody wants to publish open access nowadays or most people. It means some people need to choose a journal by just the price, and that is not good. 

Is there a particular success story or example you’re proud of that illustrates the benefits of open science?  

For me, personally, it's definitely the story about Snakemake and Bioconda because they enabled a lot of things for me. First of all, having these tools available, being able to use them, and show others how to use them in unrelated publications made me quite well known in the community. This enabled a lot of career steps for me. For example, one year before the end of my PhD thesis, I was asked to be a postdoc in the lab of Shirley Liu in Harvard. I would never have thought of applying for a postdoc in Harvard if I had not been contacted by her. She only contacted me because she knew about my open science stuff, so that was a huge opener for me. Of course, by just having something you maintain for a long time, you get regular users and they tend to collaborate more with you. That opens a lot of doors. 

How do you advise early career researchers on open science best practices? 

“When thinking about the code you publish along with your open science, make sure you use quality control tools.” 

                                              Johannes Köster, Institute for AI and Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany 

When thinking about the code you publish along with your open science, make sure you use quality control tools. There are lots of them available for virtually every programming language. The benefit is, of course, that maintainability improves and you less frequently run into issues, such as having a shortfall in your analysis that you don’t see until publication. 

Speaking about tooling, AI is also a tool one needs to mention. It can be very useful in terms of, let’s say, reviewing your code, but you have to be super careful with that. I would not use it in a generative way, especially not for science. You need to be very sure about every single method and parameter, and AI is not about being sure. What I’m really worried about is paper writing with AI. To me, writing a paper is the process of getting your research idea into a natural language. This process is part of the actual research because you need to think about everything again, and sometimes while doing that, you get new ideas or spot a mistake that you wouldn’t if you just prompted AI to write this paragraph for you. 

This process can be painful, of course, especially if you’re a beginner, but if we start to skip that, we will have a huge problem with the quality of research. It also applies to writing code, such as writing the analysis or engaging in the cognitive process of solving a problem in a scientific way. If you just delegate things like that to AI, we are lost, I think. With this I don’t want to say that AI is not a useful addition and assistance, but we should not let ourselves be seduced to use it as a shortcut. 

Are there any gaps in support or resources about open science you’d like to see addressed?  

Open science gives you a lot, but it's very hard to get recognition for that (apart from personal relationships or career steps) in terms of, let's say, metrics, for how successful you are as a researcher. In terms of software, even if it's a small, niche project, you ideally still need to maintain it for a very long time. This is often not recognised in academia. People look at citations and probably download counts, but even for niche projects, it can still be a huge benefit for the scientific community if the person who developed it maintains it for a long time. I think we need to find metrics we can have for that as well, like continuous maintenance and proper user support, and so on. 

Another gap relates to how we handle peer review. So far, reviews are a service that researchers do for others and for the journals, of course, because it wouldn't work if everybody just published and nobody reviewed. It makes total sense, but it also means that it's often anonymous and the review is not open science, although there are exceptions to that. I like this idea of the review being a publication in and of itself because that's also science, and this is something that deserves recognition. Why not make this as open as a research artefact and let others read the review? 

Currently, we think once the paper is published, the review process is over, and then we have just the authors and the readers. There's usually no direct feedback mechanism. That's something journals could think about adopting as well, allowing reviews by readers. A platform that already explores this direction is Octopus,where peer reviews get their own DOI, becoming a citable and public entity. 

What advice would you give to researchers considering adopting open science practices?  

“There's nothing better in training you as a scientist or a computer scientist than participating in open source and getting in contact with others.” 

            Johannes Köster, Institute for AI and Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany 

When I teach students, I tell them all the time, think about open-source projects you could contribute to or come up with your own. "There's nothing better in training you as a scientist or a computer scientist than participating in open source and getting in contact with others."  

Regarding taking care of open science and reproducibility in the publication process, I would say just do it, even if your PI doesn't care. They will tell you, ‘We have to publish this paper next Friday,’ and then, of course, every PhD student will think, ‘Oh, I just need to get this done.’ In the end, it goes into review, but the reviewers want some additional work to be done or criticise a certain step of the analysis. Now they need to go back to the work they did in a rush and basically repeat it because they didn’t do it in a properly documented and automated way the first time. 

What I want to say is that it usually pays off if you spend this extra time thinking about being reproducible and open, in the sense that later on you have less work to do and can build upon your previous work. By doing that, you get automatic citations because if others use your code for their analysis, they have to cite you. I can definitely see from my own practices that it nearly always pays off in the end. 

Learn more about open science and sharing research data, code and protocols & methods openly
 

Johannes Köster, PhD, Professor for Bioinformatics and Computational Oncology at the Institute for AI in Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Johannes Köster is professor for Bioinformatics and Computational Oncology at the Institute for AI in Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, with a focus on algorithm engineering and data analysis. Johannes Köster studied computer science at the University of Dortmund, did his PhD at the TU Dortmund, and was a postdoc at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard University and Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI). 

Johannes Köster is the author of the workflow management system Snakemake and the founder of the Bioconda project for sustainably distributing bioinformatics software as easily installable packages. He is also the author of the Rust-Bio library, and works in the field of Bayesian statistics in order to provide algorithms for analysis of high-throughput data while capturing and quantifying all known sources of uncertainty, thereby providing more reproducible predictions.

Related content:

• Open science conversations: 

1. Building trust through transparency: An open science conversation with Geir Kjetil Sandve 
2. Open science, altruism and impact: An interview with clinical geneticist Zornitza Stark
3. How to do science that matters: Computational biologist Casey S. Greene on purpose-driven open science practices 
4. Open science before it had a name: An interview with molecular biologist Steven Henikoff 
5. Building the infrastructure for open science: A conversation with Carole Goble 

•  Best practices for transparency and reuse: 

1. How to share your research protocols and methods openly 

2. How to share your research code openly 

• Supporting open science practices: 

1. Why share your research data? 

2. Why sharing protocols matters 

3. Why sharing your code matters 

• Starting your career? Here’s how Springer can help you publish open access 

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

Publishing open access (OA) means your research is immediately available to anyone, anywhere, without subscription barriers. If you’re considering Scientific Reports, you might be wondering: how do researchers cover the article processing charge (APC)? The good news is that funding is often available, you just need to know where to look. This guide walks you through the most common options, so you can plan early and publish with confidence.

Scientific Reports is fully open access, by design

Scientific Reports is part of the Nature Portfolio and is built to be a trusted, rigorous home for scientifically sound research from across disciplines—open and accessible to the global research community. As a fully OA journal, every article is published open access as soon as it’s ready, supporting broad discoverability and access across institutions, sectors, and regions. 

That means you don’t need to decide whether to publish OA in Scientific Reports, OA is built in. What you do need is a clear plan for funding the APC. 

Quick clarity: the APC, the timing, and why “early” matters

Scientific Reports charges an APC, which is determined from the date your article is accepted. You can find the current APC (plus any applicable VAT/ local taxes), along with helpful resources, on Scientific Reports dedicated Open Access Fees and Funding page. 

Because funding routes can depend on eligibility checks, institutional approvals, or grant conditions, it’s worth exploring your options before submission (or at least early in the process), so there are no surprises later.

Your OA funding routes: the most common options

Most authors cover APCs through one (or a combination) of these routes: 

1. Institutional open access agreements (often the easiest route) 
2. Funder or grant support 
3. Institutional OA funds (via your library or research office) 
4. Waivers or discounts (when available) 
5. Self-funding (as a last resort, or when required) 

Let’s unpack each one.

Route 1 (start here): Institutional open access agreements

Many universities and institutions have open access agreements with Springer Nature that can cover APCs fully or partially for eligible authors and eligible journals. 

Depending on your institution’s agreement, this support may look like: 

• Full APC coverage (your institution pays 100%) 
• A percentage discount (e.g., a fixed % off the list price) 
• A fixed contribution (e.g., up to a set amount) 

These agreements are designed to reduce both the financial and administrative burden, and they’re usually integrated into the publishing workflow for the corresponding author. 

Tip: Even if you’ve never used OA funding before, you may already be covered, especially if your institution has a library-led OA team or participates in national/consortium arrangements.

If you’re in the US

The US landscape is mixed. Policies, OA budgets, and institutional approaches vary widely. That’s exactly why OA agreements can be such a helpful first check: if your university participates, an agreement can remove much of the friction (and uncertainty) around APC payment.

Route 2: Your research funder or grant provider

Many funders allow APCs as eligible costs, either within an existing grant budget or through a dedicated OA publishing allowance. 

What to check: 

• Is OA publishing an allowable cost for your grant? 
• Are there rules about the licence type (e.g., CC BY)? 
• Do you need to acknowledge funding in a specific way? 
• Does your funder require immediate OA (which Scientific Reports already provides)? 

If you’re unsure, your institution’s grants office or library OA team can often confirm the best route quickly.

Route 3: Your library’s OA fund (or local institutional support)

Even if you’re not covered by an OA agreement, your institution may have: 

• a central OA fund 
• a departmental publishing budget 
• support for early-career researchers 
• guidance on applying for institutional or charitable publication funds 

Libraries are often the best starting point here. Many have dedicated OA specialists who can: 

• tell you what funding exists locally 
• explain eligibility rules 
• help you avoid delays later in the process 

Route 4: Waivers and discounts (when available) 

Springer Nature offers APC waivers and discounts for articles in fully open access journals in certain circumstances. 

Two key points to know up front: 

1. Some waivers/discounts apply automatically (for example, based on the corresponding author’s location in the world’s lowest income countries). 
2. Other waiver/discount requests are assessed case-by-case, and typically need to be requested at the point of manuscript submission (not during review, and not after acceptance). 

If you think you may need a waiver or discount, plan for this early so you can apply at the right moment in the workflow.

Route 5: Self-funding (when other routes aren’t available) 

Sometimes researchers pay APCs directly, especially when: 

• there’s no agreement coverage 
• the grant doesn’t allow publication costs 
• local institutional funds are unavailable 
• a time-sensitive publication decision needs a fast route 

If this is your situation, it can still help to speak to your library or department first. They may be able to suggest partial support, discounts, or alternative internal funding streams. 

Find your best route in 60 seconds: a simple checklist 

If you do nothing else, do this: 

1. Check whether your institution has a Springer Nature OA agreement (and whether Scientific Reports is included). 
2. Confirm you’re the corresponding author (agreement eligibility typically runs through the corresponding author). 
3. Check your affiliations (if you have multiple, test the most relevant ones). 
4. Check your funder rules (especially licence/compliance requirements). 
5. If needed, talk to your library/OA office early (they can often resolve uncertainties fast). 

A few FAQs researchers often ask 

“What if I have multiple affiliations, or international co-authors?” 

Funding eligibility is commonly tied to the corresponding author’s affiliation and the institution’s agreement terms. If you have multiple affiliations, it can be worth checking each one and confirming which affiliation should be used for funding purposes. 

“Does funding affect peer review?” 

No. Funding checks and APC payment processes are separate from editorial decisions and peer review. 

“What if I realise too late that I needed a waiver?” 

Because waiver/discount requests typically need to be made at the point of submission, it’s worth flagging financial constraints early—before your manuscript progresses. 

Publishing OA shouldn’t be the barrier 

Open access is about making scientifically sound research available to the widest possible community, globally and immediately. And in many cases, the funding is already there. 

If you’re considering Scientific Reports, take a few minutes to explore the routes above. A quick check now can remove delays later and help you focus on what matters most: sharing your work. 

Next step: Start by checking your institutional OA agreement eligibility, and if you’re unsure, contact your library or OA office for guidance. 

Check your eligibility in minutes. Head to the Scientific Reports website to explore funding options, agreements, and next steps for submitting your research.

Related content:

• The open access advantage: Real stories from multidisciplinary Scientific Reports authors
• What does it mean to be part of Nature Portfolio? We ask Scientific Reports authors
• How Scientific Reports supports research careers
• Scientific Reports: Your hub for global discovery
• Scientific Reports: At the Helm of Arctic Climate Research 
• How to publish open access with BMC: Funding options explained
• Discover journals: Open access funding options for our authors
• Starting your career? Here’s how Springer can help you publish open access
• The story of Springer’s first open access book
• Advancing knowledge: How open access is changing research

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest!

Connecting research to real‑world policy outcomes is becoming a strategic priority for institutions that support and disseminate scholarly knowledge. Institutions are increasingly expected to demonstrate how the research they fund, publish, or manage contributes to national and global priorities, including the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Yet much of that impact depends on what happens after research is produced: how easily it can be found, interpreted, and applied by policy actors.

In The publication‑to‑policy connection: Supporting the real‑world impact of research, we explored how evidence moves through policy ecosystems, highlighting the critical role played by intermediary organisations in translating research into use. More recently, What can institutions learn from a systems approach to sustainability transformation? examined how integrated data, collaboration, and aligned financing are needed to move beyond policy influence towards coordinated SDG action.

Our 2025 SDG Impact Report identified one key group that consistently sits at the centre of this translation process: think tanks. These organisations are among the most active users of scholarly literature in the policy ecosystem, synthesising research into insights that governments and international agencies rely on. Understanding how they work, and what they need from research, provides institutions with a powerful lens on how to boost visibility, usability, and policy influence.

This case study follows that process in practice through the work of a leading think tank, adelphi, showing how evidence moves from research to policy and what institutions can do to ensure their research is policy‑ready and positioned for maximum real‑world SDG impact.

How the SDGs shape policy priorities and funding

André Müller is Senior Advisor in Water and Biodiversity at adelphi, a German think tank and public policy consultancy focused on climate, environment, and development.

For André, “the SDGs are the overarching framework for almost everything we do in development cooperation.” This framework also shapes how national priorities are set and funded: “Since the SDGs are the overarching framework guiding Official Development Assistance (ODA), government aid that promotes the economic development and welfare of developing countries, the topics represented in them are those that receive funding and are mainstreamed into national policies,” he explains.

His work focuses on sustainable water management, freshwater ecosystem conservation, and climate adaptation, often in transboundary governance projects. “SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) is definitely the most central to my work, but because water is such a cross-cutting issue, I often deal with other SDGs too, especially those related to biodiversity (SDG 15: Life on Land) and climate (SDG 13: Climate Action). Our work frequently analyses how solutions can deliver co-benefits across several sectors, SDGs, and other global policy frameworks.”

How think tanks use research every day

Our 2025 report found that think tanks, international organisations, and NGOs are the policy actors most likely to cite scholarly research. They also produce and publish their own studies, synthesising evidence into policy recommendations that are frequently cited by other types of policymakers. This points to a distinct role for these organisations as knowledge brokers, translating research in ways that can influence policymaking across multiple arenas.

For André, this science-to-policy-practice is simply part of the job: “This process is really our everyday business,” he explains. “We use primary research, synthesise the results, and communicate them to different audiences in ways that suit their needs, this might mean simplifying the language, focusing on specific findings, or turning research into actionable recommendations.”

Research underpins almost every aspect of his work. “I use research every day, my job wouldn’t be possible without it. I write studies, policy papers, and briefs, and we develop technical assessments for the state of rivers or wetlands, as well as management plans for river basins or give trainings on financing wetland protection.”

For research institutions, this has important implications: how research is accessed, discovered, and presented can directly shape its ability to inform policy. “All these activities depend on solid evidence and research,” explains André. “I also conduct research myself, generating new knowledge as a social scientist, for example, through expert interviews or focus groups. This applied research is always closely linked to practical challenges in the field.”

This intermediary role is particularly visible in Germany, where Ministries typically fund implementing agencies, which then contract think tanks and NGOs to deliver evidence-based inputs: “These agencies rarely deliver projects directly,” says André; “They contract think tanks like adelphi, or other organisations, to write policy briefs, develop strategies, or deliver capacity-building trainings.”

How evidence moves from research to policy

A recent example is a project André led for Germany’s main development agency, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, in preparation for the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP 15) in Montreal and the United Nations 2023 Water Conference in New York, focused on strengthening the role of freshwater ecosystems in German development cooperation.

“We developed four factsheets, each focused-on SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and its subgoals related to freshwater ecosystems, demonstrating links to other SDGs. We analysed biophysical connections, policy links, and co-benefits, and provided recommendations for strengthening these ties. We also produced a comprehensive policy paper exploring how German development actors can lead global efforts to better protect and restore freshwater ecosystems.”

Rather than producing new academic research alone, the emphasis was on translation, integration, and timing, ensuring that evidence entered policy discussions at moments when it could shape agendas. Thanks to sustained efforts like these, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework now includes explicit goals and indicators for freshwater ecosystems previously underrepresented in global biodiversity frameworks.

Why timing matters in policy influence

The SDGs have become a powerful lens for understanding and addressing society’s most urgent challenges, including access to clean water. While these issues were active areas of research long before the SDGs were introduced in 2015, André’s experience is that the Goals have helped align evidence, funding, and policy priorities.

“NGOs and think tanks have worked hard to build the evidence base needed to raise the profile of freshwater ecosystems in these policies and their associated indicators.”

This alignment increases the demand for timely access to credible, interdisciplinary research across multiple SDGs and subject areas, particularly in the context of global cuts to development budgets: “It’s more important than ever to implement solutions that pay off for multiple SDGs. Nature-based solutions are a great example here: restoring peatlands supports biodiversity, maintains healthy water cycles, helps with drought resilience, stores carbon, and benefits local livelihoods such as fishing and hunting. There are many other freshwater-related solutions with win-wins for multiple SDGs.”

Why research impact in policy is difficult to measure

Despite the emphasis on evidence-based policymaking, André is candid about how difficult impact can be in practice: “There’s a lot of discussion and activity around policymaking, but from my experience, actually influencing policy through research is quite challenging. If you want your research to have a real impact on policy, it takes a lot of experience and a strong network to know how to make that happen.”

This raises important questions about how impact is tracked, and how it could be strengthened: “We should get better at tracking whether our work actually makes a difference, and at improving our strategies for making that impact happen.”

For institutions, this highlights that impact is not only about availability, but about usability and reach across different audiences. This echoes the UN’s call for science to contribute to sustainable development through action, not just theory. The UNESCO’s 2016 Science for Sustainable Development policy brief emphasised closer alignment between science and policy through partnerships across government, business, and civil society.

Where institutions can strengthen research-to-policy pathways

Our report identifies several ways that institutions can strengthen this research-to-policy pathway by supporting think tanks in their intermediary role:

Institutional repositories should consider:

• Improving the accessibility of research through open access, making it easier for think tanks to engage with evidence, particularly in fast-moving policy contexts
• Using SDG-aligned tagging, metadata, and thematic curation to help surface relevant research more effectively

Librarians and knowledge managers can support think tanks by:

• Supporting research synthesis and review content, which is disproportionately cited in policy
• Helping users navigate bodies of evidence that cut across disciplines and SDGs

Research offices and funders can improve policy relevance by:

• Supporting outputs that are usable beyond academia, including synthesis and applied research
• Encouraging research that is closely linked to practical challenges in the field

Across all institutions, creating opportunities for closer dialogue between researchers, think tanks, and policymakers is essential, for example through institutional partnerships, events, and programmes such as Science for a Sustainable Future.

What’s next for research impact in policy?

As the 2030 target for the Sustainable Development Goals approaches, the need for evidence-informed policymaking will only intensify. Governments, funders, and international organisations are under increasing pressure to demonstrate progress, making the effective use of research more important than ever.

This case study highlights how that process works in practice. Research does not move directly from publication to policy. Instead, it is interpreted, synthesised, and applied by intermediary organisations such as think tanks, which play a critical role in shaping how evidence is used in decision-making.

Think tanks will continue to play a central role in this ecosystem, but they cannot operate in isolation. Stronger collaboration between research institutions, think tanks, and policymakers will be essential to ensure that evidence is not only produced, but actively used to shape decisions.

For institutions, this highlights the importance of moving beyond access alone to ensure research is positioned, discovered, and applied to strengthen its contribution to evidence-informed SDG policy. Explore the full findings in our SDG Impact Report: From publications to policy.

About André Müller

André Müller works as a Senior Advisor at adelphi, specialising in sustainable water resources management and biodiversity conservation. He sees an urgent need to drastically lower the growing pressures from human actions and a warming climate on water resources and the ecosystems that provide them. Thus, he dedicates his work to projects that spearhead a sustainable, climate-resilient water management approach.

Related content

• What can institutions learn from a systems approach to sustainability transformation?
• The publication-to-policy connection: Supporting the real-world impact of research
• The Continuing Rise of Collaboration
• The state of research assessment: Insights from a survey of 6,600+ researchers
• Publishing SDG research: Initiatives that support your institution’s efforts

Don't miss the latest news & blogs, subscribe to The Link Alerts! 

Publishing your research is only part of the story. What matters just as much is who finds it, and whether they engage with it. Real impact comes from reaching the right readers: those who will apply your findings, cite your work, and build on your research.

Read on to learn how Springer Nature collections help make sure your research doesn’t just get seen but reaches communities actively looking for work like yours. That’s where meaningful engagement, and long-term impact, begins.

Why engaged readers matter

It’s not just about how many people see your research, it’s about who engages with it and how.

There’s a clear difference between: 

• Reach: being visible to a broad audience 
• Meaningful engagement: being read, cited, shared, and applied

When your work reaches the right audience, you’re more likely to see: 

• Higher citation potential from researchers working in your field 
• New collaborations across disciplines and institutions 
• Real-world impact, from influencing policy to shaping practice

For early-career researchers, this is especially critical. Building visibility among the right audiences helps establish your reputation, grow your network, and position your research within ongoing academic conversations. 

As highlighted in author stories, researchers who publish in collections often benefit from more targeted visibility and stronger downstream engagement like tangible interest from health ministries looking to put research into practice, WHO policy citations, and collaborative opportunities, because their work reaches readers already invested in the topic.

The challenge: reaching the right audience

Even high-quality research can struggle to find the right readers. 

That’s because: 

• Research is increasingly fragmented across disciplines and subfields 
• Publishing in a general context doesn’t guarantee targeted readership 
• Readers are looking for relevance, not volume 

You might publish strong work, but if it’s not positioned alongside related research, it risks being overlooked by the very audience most likely to use and cite it.

This is a common challenge highlighted across author case studies, for example, researchers working on global health and policy shared how context and placement were key to ensuring their work reached policymakers and practitioners, not just academics.

How Springer Nature collections drive engagement

Springer Nature collections are designed to help your research connect with engaged, relevant audiences. They do this by:

Curating research around specific topics

Your work is grouped with related articles, making it easier for readers to discover and explore connected research.

Reaching targeted research communities

Collections are promoted to audiences most likely to engage, helping your work reach readers actively interested in your field. 

Using audience insight and segmentation

Distribution is informed by reader behaviour and interests, increasing relevance and discoverability. 

Aligning with active research conversations

Editorial curation ensures your work sits within ongoing discussions, not in isolation.

In practice, this means your research is more discoverable, more contextualised, and more likely to be used. 

As explored in “Inside the author experience: what collection authors say and what to expect,” authors consistently highlight improved visibility and audience alignment as key benefits of publishing in a collection.

Want to see how you can get your work in front of the right readers? This short video shows how collections help connect your research with engaged audiences.

What engaged readership looks like in practice

Engaged readership isn’t just a metric, it’s reflected in how your research is used. 

For example:

• Researchers publishing on global challenges have seen their work reach policymakers and inform decision-making 
• Early-career authors report greater confidence in their visibility when publishing within a collection 
• Authors working in interdisciplinary areas benefit from cross-field discovery, connecting with audiences they might not otherwise reach

In one featured case, research on malaria control reached policy audiences more effectively thanks to targeted placement within a relevant collection, helping bridge the gap between research and real-world application. 

These examples show that when your research reaches the right audience, its impact extends far beyond publication.

How you can increase engagement (author tips)

If you want your research to connect with the right readers, there are practical steps you can take, before and after publication. 

Choose the right collection

Publishing in a collection aligned with your topic helps ensure your work sits alongside relevant research and reaches the right audience from the outset.

Write for discoverability

Use clear, accessible titles and abstracts that reflect how readers search for content. Avoid overly complex phrasing, clarity improves both search visibility and reader engagement.

Focus on why your research matters

Make it easy for readers to understand the significance of your work. Highlight the problem you’re addressing and its real-world relevance. 

Use consistent, relevant keywords 

Think about how your audience searches for content. Using consistent terminology improves indexing and helps your research surface in search and recommendation systems. 

Plan for post-publication visibility 

Consider how your research will be shared, through collections, networks, and broader promotion. Visibility doesn’t stop at publication. 

As many collection authors note, thinking about your audience early, rather than after publishing, can significantly increase engagement and impact. 

Focus on your audience early on 

If you want your research to do more than exist. If you want it to connect, influence, and resonate, you need to think beyond publication. Consider who will read it, how they’ll find it, and why it matters to them. 

Springer Nature collections are designed to support exactly that: helping your research reach the audiences who are most likely to engage with it and amplify its impact.

Explore the Springer Nature collections hub and find the right home for your research.

Related content:

• Inside the author experience: what collection authors say and what to expect 
• Safeguarding Springer Nature collections: the integrity checks you should know about 
• What is a Collection? We Answer Your FAQs 
• Unlocking Research Impact: What Is a Springer Nature Collection? 
• Discover collections: An effective approach for enhancing article impact  
• Publishing to reach policymakers: Springer Nature Collections 
• Publishing to a Collection: Impact for Early Career Researchers 
• How Publishing in a Collection Ensured Malaria Control Guidance Reached Policymakers 
• How to create a truly impactful collection: Insights from an editor-in-chief 
• Guest Editor Q&A: Becoming a Springer Nature Guest Editor 
• How Springer Nature Collections power SDG research

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

Most researchers don’t need another email. Between journal alerts, funding updates, institutional messages and general news, inboxes are already under pressure. Yet, for many readers around the world, Nature Briefing is a resource they deliberately make time to open. So, what makes it different?

Based on anonymised feedback from readers across disciplines, career stages and geographies, a clear picture emerges: Nature Briefing isn’t just another source of science news, it’s become a trusted daily ritual, helping researchers stay informed, curious and grounded in a fast‑moving and often overwhelming landscape. 

“Just wanted to drop a note to you saying that Nature Briefing is the only news I am opening these days. It’s a life saver. […] Even if the news isn’t great for science, it’s still a safe place to turn to. I always forward an article or two to family and friends.”

– Anonymised reader 

Get Nature Briefing in your inbox

Join researchers worldwide who start their day with a trusted filter for the most important science stories, curated by Nature editors.

What you’ll get: 

• A quick, readable daily roundup that saves you time 
• Context and clarity, not just headlines 
• Breadth across disciplines to spark new ideas

Free to sign up. Sign up here. 

Breadth that expands horizons, without overwhelming

Nature Briefing readers often work in highly specialised areas. But many say one of the newsletter’s strengths is helping them look beyond their own field. 

They value the range, from discoveries far outside their discipline to timely insights within it, and the sense of how science connects across topics, communities and real‑world events. Several readers mention using stories from the Briefing as conversation starters in lab meetings, teaching and everyday conversations. For them, the Briefing becomes a way to stay connected not just to science, but to how science fits into the world more broadly. 

For time‑constrained researchers, that balance is critical. As one long‑time reader put it, the Briefing offers “just enough to stay informed, without feeling overwhelmed”. 

“Like everyone, I receive Avogadro’s number of emails every day, many devoted to science news. Nature Briefing is my favorite, and I always look forward to reading it.”

– Anonymous reader

Thoughtful summaries that respect the reader

Another recurring theme is respect for the reader’s intelligence. 

Many readers compare Nature Briefing favourably to newsletter formats that rely on headlines alone or links without explanation. They appreciate that the summaries are written with care, offering context, nuance and clarity, rather than oversimplification or hype. 

This approach builds trust. Reader’s mention feeling confident that what they are reading has been chosen and written thoughtfully, drawing from multiple sources and perspectives. Over time, that consistency becomes a reason to keep opening the email, even when everything else in the inbox remains unread.

A human tone that makes science more enjoyable

Content matters, but so does tone. 

Across the feedback, readers repeatedly mention the warmth and humanity of Nature Briefing. Gentle humour, personal sign‑offs and moments of delight stand out in a professional environment that can otherwise feel impersonal or relentless. 

For some readers, especially those later in their careers, this tone makes it “a little more fun to be an active scientist”. For others, it simply makes the reading experience more enjoyable, which is a reminder that science can inspire curiosity, wonder and joy. 

“It’s a great balance of insightful and entertaining, and gives me the info (and a fun break) that I’m looking for."

— Tyler Arbour, Biogeochemist, Center for Microbial Ecology and Technology, University of Ghent

A steady place in uncertain times

Several readers describe Nature Briefing as more than a source of information, it’s a steady presence. 

In times when science funding, public trust, or global events make the news feel heavy, readers value having a place to turn that feels calm, balanced and reliable. Even when the stories themselves are challenging, the Briefing is seen as a space that avoids unnecessary alarmism while still taking science seriously. 

For some, maintaining that connection to science has a deeply personal meaning, helping them stay engaged with a subject they’ve dedicated their lives to, or feel close to conversations they once shared with others. 

That sense of steadiness shows up in small habits: readers returning to the Briefing even when the news is difficult, because the framing feels calm, balanced and grounded in evidence, without switching off from the world. 

Shared, forwarded and talked about

Nature Briefing rarely stays in one inbox. 

Readers frequently mention forwarding articles to colleagues, students, friends and family. Some describe printing out quotes or screenshots, pinning them up in workspaces, or bringing stories into teaching and lab discussions. 

This pattern of sharing reflects something important: readers don’t just consume the Briefing, they use it to communicate science, spark curiosity and connect with others.

More than a newsletter

For many researchers, Nature Briefing has become: 

• a trusted filter in a noisy information landscape 
• a window into science beyond a single discipline  
• a daily habit that fits into real working lives 
• a small daily reminder of curiosity, discovery, and why the work matters

It’s not just about staying up to date. It’s about staying connected, to ideas, to science in the wider world, and to a community of people who care about understanding it. 

Get Nature Briefing in your inbox

Free, daily science news and perspectives curated by Nature editors. Sign up here.

Related Content

• How Nature Portfolio Authors balance life and research
• Making an impact: Nature Portfolio authors on their most influential articles
• Behind the results: Nature Portfolio authors speak about the unseen efforts underlying their research
• Nature Portfolio authors explain how inclusion and diverse perspectives strengthen their research
• Insider perspectives: What authors really think about publishing in Nature Reviews
• How Scientific Reports supports research careers
• What does it mean to be part of Nature Portfolio? We ask Scientific Reports authors
• The open access advantage: Real stories from multidisciplinary Scientific Reports authors 
• Scientific Reports: Your hub for global discovery

Publishing a book is a major achievement — one that deserves visibility within and beyond your discipline. In today’s digital landscape, social media is one of the most effective ways to help your work reach an audience who will benefit from it most. With researchers increasingly active on platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook, and more. You have every reason to showcase your book there, too.

Our new guide: How to use social media to promote your Book, gets into the specifics of the most used platforms, and tips on choosing the right platform to engage with your research community. It's designed for all researchers, no matter what stage you are in your career. Whether you're just beginning to build your online presence or are already active on social platforms, this guide is for you. 

Why social media matters 

Social media was originally called social networking, and for research, that’s one of its superpowers. For research collaboration, it’s less about posting, re‑posting, and liking, and more about making connections that you can then take offline and into real life. But it makes finding connections — that you might not be able to make any other way — possible.  

You can find, follow, and join communities that share your research interests. You can also connect directly with readers and peers, including researchers in other countries. Which is why engaging regularly (even when you’re not discussing your book) makes it a uniquely powerful tool. 

What’s inside the guide 

This new guide gives you quick, actionable steps and best practices for promoting your book, and instructions for each platform. 

Choosing the right platform 

One of the most useful sections of the guide walks through how to get started, offering tips on the primary social media platforms to help you decide which one(s) are right for promoting your book, including: 

• LinkedIn for professional engagement and visual posts 
• Platform X/Twitter for real‑time conversations and tagging researchers 
• Instagram for visual content and guiding readers to book links directly through the stories feature 
• WeChat Ideal for Chinese researchers, and is widely used for research‑related activities.  
• Bluesky a newer platform where academic communities are beginning to grow 
• Facebook for groups and institutional pages

It also offers practical instructions for posting on each platform, including how to add links, hashtags, and use images and visuals of your book.

Book promotion toolkit

When you publish your book with Springer Nature, you will receive a link to the toolkit to help you spread the word. So, you don’t need to design any promotional assets yourself.

In the guide, you’ll find details about the bespoke marketing assets provided in the toolkit. Including how to search for your book title, download the promotional flyer, social media images, and email signature banner. 

Ready to get started?

Promoting your book on social media isn’t only about reach — it’s about sparking interest, encouraging meaningful discussion, and helping the right readers discover your work. And the benefits don’t stop there. A strong online presence grows with you, boosting visibility for future projects and collaborations. 

Download the guide to explore platform-specific advice, best practices, and real examples to help you promote your book with confidence.

For more tips on using social media read these articles from our social media series. 

Related content:

• Promote Your Book: Social Media Strategies for Authors
• Use social media to find collaborators in other countries
• A social media how-to for Chinese researchers
• Dos and don’ts of AI for social media 

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

“SDG 17 is about partnership for the goals. And sort of the core principle, the core intuition, is that collaboration is needed to deal with complexity.” – Dr Kate Roll, UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. 

The importance of partnership for sustainable development was covered in a recent Working Scientist podcast series from Nature Careers called ‘How to save humanity in 17 goals’. The sustainable development goals, or SDGs, are an important focus for us at Springer Nature, when we consider the positive impact we can have in disseminating research that can enable global progress.  

Our most important contribution is through our activity as a publisher. However, we go beyond that to support the communities we serve more directly. This includes a regular and carefully considered programme of charitable donations, giving over €3.5 million across multiple projects from 2022-2025. One principle has guided Springer Nature’s charitable support over the past three years: impact matters most when it is sustained, thoughtful and rooted in partnership. 

While there have been occasions that called for specific responses or one-off donations, such as our efforts to help colleagues and partners following the devastating Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica, or our focused support for researchers impacted by the war in Ukraine, our approach has focused on backing initiatives that strengthen the wider research and learning ecosystem over time. This means asking not only where help is needed, but how it can contribute to lasting outcomes for communities connected to science, education and advancing knowledge.

Strengthening science communication and trust 

Public trust in science depends not just on the quality of research, but on how well it is communicated and understood. For that reason, a core focus of our charitable activity has been supporting organisations that improve science communication and public understanding of research. This includes backing the global network of science media centres and the Springer Nature Fellowship for Advancing Science Journalism in Africa and the Middle East, offered in collaboration with the Knight Science Journalism (KSJ) Program at MIT, now in its third year. 

These initiatives play an important role in helping reliable evidence reach broader audiences, tackling misinformation, and supporting informed decision-making. In a world where scientific expertise is increasingly contested, strengthening these channels is a vital part of sustaining trust in research. 

Widening participation in research and learning 

Another priority has been widening participation in education and research. 

Through a mix of global programmes and locally led initiatives, our support has aimed to help people engage with learning, develop skills, and contribute to research. We’re proud to have supported over 70 students and early career researchers to take their first steps in research careers via programmes such as In2Research in the UK, the Deutschlandstipendium in Germany, and the Innovation in Cancer Research programme in the US.  

Looking to younger students, around 300 primary school aged children have attended the Civitas Saturday School in our London offices for extra support with maths and English since 2014. The school, which runs every weekend of term time, aims to help local children who have been identified as working below their expected level to make extra progress and thrive.   

Partnerships that strengthen research ecosystems in lower-income countries are also a focus. We are particularly proud of our association with Research4Life, which this year celebrates its 25th anniversary of enabling access to research for those in low-income countries, and which has evolved to build capability to support researchers around the global to contribute as authors, peer reviewers and editors.   

Access to knowledge remains uneven, but sustained investment in participation and capacity-building helps create the conditions for more inclusive and resilient research systems.

A partnership-led and principled approach

Since 2021, Springer Nature’s charitable giving has been guided by a clear framework and consistent governance. This helps ensure our support is strategic, transparent and aligned with our purpose of advancing discovery, learning and progress. 

Working with established and trusted partners allows us to contribute expertise as well as financial support, and to focus on outcomes rather than visibility.  It also helps ensure that our charitable activity complements, rather than substitutes for or hinders, the responsibilities and efforts of others across the research ecosystem or further afield.

Looking ahead

The challenges facing science, education and society are not short-term, and neither are the solutions. As Springer Nature looks ahead, our charitable support will continue to prioritise long-term impact, trusted partnerships and initiatives that help knowledge to be discovered, trusted and used. 

By keeping impact at the centre, we aim to contribute in ways that matter to research communities and learners, today and in the years to come.

For research organisations working to strengthen open science practices, the tenth anniversary of the FAIR principles is a timely milestone to take stock of what has changed and where more efforts are needed. As open data policies evolve, AI adoption accelerates, and expectations for data quality intensify, understanding researcher attitudes has never been more important.

The 2025 State of Open Data webinar brought together leading experts to discuss a decade of findings on researchers’ experience of, and attitudes towards, data sharing. In this blog, I explore key themes and persistent challenges to open data and highlight insights that can help institutions more effectively support meaningful and sustainable data sharing.

Closing the gap between Open Data ambition and everyday practice

Open data is no longer an emerging idea or an aspirational principle. The 2025 State of Open Data report, ‘A decade of progress and challenges,’ analyses ten years of tracking researcher experience and attitudes towards data sharing. It shows that open data has moved from the margins of scholarly practice into the mainstream.

Indeed, awareness is high, policies are widespread, and infrastructure exists. But data sharing is still not routine for many researchers, between mandate fatigue and a lack of recognition.

To examine the tensions between the progress and persistent obstacles, the webinar convened experts contributing to the 2025 report. Their perspectives provide a focused assessment of how far the community has come and what is required next to close the gap between intent and implementation, particularly for organisations aiming to support equitable and sustainable data‑sharing practices.

Webinar panel:

• Mark Hahnel, Vice President Open Research, Digital Science
• Graham Smith, Director Research Data Innovation, Springer Nature
• Brian Nosek, Co-founder and Executive Director, Center for Open Science; Professor of Psychology, University of Virginia (USA)
• Hilary Hanahoe, Secretary General, Research Data Alliance (RDA)
• Joy Owango, Founding Director, Training Centre in Communication (TCC Africa) (Kenya)
• Chair: Ana Van Gulick, Head of Customer Engagement, Digital Science

“Open data has gone from novelty to mainstream… now everyone recognises that this is something that they need to wrestle with.”

- Brian Nosek, Co-founder and Executive Director, Center for Open Science; Professor of Psychology, University of Virginia

From awareness to infrastructure: The decade’s biggest shift

The State of Open Data survey has been running since 2016, capturing researchers’ relationships with data sharing. A decade on, it has impressive scale and global reach. Since its launch, the survey has gathered insights from over 43,000 researchers across 212 countries and territories, making it the longest-running longitudinal study on this topic. It also covers a wide range of institutional contexts, including universities, hospitals, industry, and government.

The webinar asked panellists how researchers’ perspectives on data sharing have evolved over this decade. One of the most significant changes is the steady rise in awareness of the FAIR principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability. Mark Hahnel describes this as a genuine success story: “About 80% of researchers globally have heard of FAIR or are familiar with FAIR. ‘Never heard of FAIR’ has gone from around 60% to 20%.” Importantly, this shift cuts across most disciplines, even if adoption still varies.

The deeper shift, as identified by Joy Owango, is the move “from awareness to infrastructure”. Ten years ago, many researchers simply did not know what open data meant or where to share their data. Today, FAIR-aligned repositories, persistent identifiers, and institutional policies are far more common.

The conditions to move beyond counting datasets towards thinking about quality are already here, according to Hahnel. “No one can say, ‘I don’t know where to put my data’ anymore,” he says.

Researchers are often judged by publications and journal prestige, not by the accessibility or reusability of their data sets.”

- Joy Owango, Founding Director, Training Centre in Communication (TCC Africa)

Making data sharing routine: How organisations can support researchers

Awareness and infrastructure have improved so dramatically, but data sharing is still not routine. The problem is not principle, but practice, according to the webinar panel. What opportunities for organisations can we identify in the friction points researchers face that the panel discussed?

1. Helping researchers start earlier can make all the difference: Brian Nosek describes a familiar scenario: Researchers confront data-sharing requirements at the point of publication, long after data collection has concluded. At that point, preparing data for sharing becomes a burden. The well-intentioned policies turn into bureaucratic obstacles rather than good research practice. Organisations can certainly support researchers in prioritising data sharing from the start and guiding them throughout the research process. This support can make sharing an essential part of communicating research rather than an afterthought.
2. Supporting recognition for data sharing in research assessment: Deeper structural issues, particularly around incentives, also play a part. Researchers, Joy Owango notes, are still evaluated on publication and journal prestige, not on the accessibility or reusability of their data. Because of this lack of recognition in funding or promotion, data sharing remains a low priority even where infrastructure exists. Organisations can support the move towards broader recognition of data quality and openness in their own contexts, as well as more broadly in coordinated action and alignment across funders, publishers, and policy frameworks. By providing clear guidance, infrastructure, and training, they can help ensure data contributions are recognised as important research outputs.
3. Capacity differences show where targeted support can have real impac: Hilary Hanahoe highlights the cost of implementing FAIR properly and the disparities this creates: “Some institutions can afford specialised staff to support researchers; others cannot.” Indeed, institutional capacity is uneven, and these gaps are often amplified by regional and regulatory constraints. Where limited capacities are identified, institutions can attempt to address this collaboratively, for instance using joint training programmes or shared guidance as pooled capacity across institutions in a consortium or a region. These adjustments could produce meaningful gains and create more equitable conditions across the research ecosystem. 

AI and open data: Accelerating discovery, amplifying risk

The webinar speakers are in agreement that AI will redefine both the value and the risks associated with open data, and I couldn’t agree more. Adoption of AI tools by researchers is accelerating rapidly, Mark Hahnel notes, and at this pace, AI-assisted research will soon be near-universal. This creates new opportunities to enhance discovery and efficiency, while also highlighting areas where data practices can continue to strengthen.

Because AI systems are based on the input they are given, Joy Owango warns of poor metadata, biases, and mislabelling that can be amplified at scale. Continued investment in robust data stewardship is therefore increasingly valuable, to ensure that data sets are well-documented, clearly structured, and accurately labelled.

AI can also unintentionally narrow the landscape of research by privileging data that is already machine-readable and well documented, according to Graham Smith. That bias risks marginalising disciplines, regions, and forms of knowledge that are harder to standardise. This raises important questions for research organisations about how AI may shape what is visible in global research, and how existing support mechanisms might be adapted over time to avoid further marginalising less structured forms of knowledge.

Looking ahead, Hilary Hanahoe declares that the open data community has a duty, not just an opportunity, to shape the governance of AI use in research. In this important role, the open data community can contribute frameworks that prioritise transparency, inclusivity, and responsible use, and ensure that AI strengthens the research ecosystem.

“Policy on its own isn’t going to do the job. We’re talking about behavioural change, cultural change.”

- Graham Smith, Director Research Data Innovation, Springer Nature

From sharing data to doing it well: How institutions can support better data sharing

The challenge for the next decade is the shift from compliance to quality, from volume to value. And policies and mandates along cannot drive sustainable, meaningful data sharing practices. To support continued and better adoption of data sharing, institutions must increasingly be involved in shaping how research itself is produced, shared, and reused in the age of AI. Not just through their policies, but the actual experience of their researchers and how usable their data is.

As we’ve seen, awareness of data sharing is at an all-time high. This allows institutions to move beyond advocacy to operationalisation. To encourage the necessary cultural change, enabling good practice and making it easier than bad practice is key. Institutions can promote this, where possible, through practical support for data sharing, encouragement of data sharing research practices and discourses, and formal or informal recognition.

In this transitional timepoint, institutional infrastructure, services, and training should aim to support researchers in producing data that is usable and trustworthy. Discipline-specific guidance could round your offerings for holistic data sharing support. This support would ideally be offered early in the research lifecycle as well as throughout, and paired with practical tools such as templates, storage, curation time, and technical support. With this institutional leadership and support, the academic community will continue moving into a future in which data is reusable and reproducible, and the ecosystem is inclusive and trustworthy.

Understanding the state of open data can empower institutions to support data sharing proactively and appropriately. Watch the full webinar for more details and in-depth exchanges.

Related content:

• The 2025 State of Open Data report: Can technology push openness forward?
• Supporting open science: Exploring barriers and solutions to data sharing
• Supporting global open data through what really works
• The many dimensions of rethinking research assessment
• Increasing equity through open access agreements

Don't miss the latest news & blogs, subscribe to The Link Alerts!

If you’re new to publishing in a collection, you shouldn’t have to guess what happens next, or where to go for help. In this post, we dig into the collections author journey and share what authors tell us in satisfaction feedback, alongside real author experiences, to show what outstanding support looks like in practice and what you can expect when you publish in a Springer Nature collection.

“Collections are really important for us because it's a way to offer researchers a home for their research, where we currently don't have the perfect journal for it. And oftentimes those are trending topics where it's just too soon to have a journal available on such a current or emerging topic.” 

– Daniel Korany, EVP Journals, Full Open Access Brands

Prefer the highlights? Watch the short video below for a quick summary of how experts working on Springer Nature collections keep your submission moving so you can focus on your research, not admin.

Supporting you from start to finish 

Publishing can sometimes feel overwhelming. That is why we built the CMA team, a dedicated group of experts from academia, publishing, and research. This team oversees each collection from proposal through publication and beyond, fostering collaboration and ensuring every project is meaningful and impactful. This specialised team is a defining hallmark of Springer Nature. 

From the initial idea to the final publication, our collections authors receive ongoing support to navigate peer review, production, and post-publication engagement with confidence. Our experts are here to guide you through the entire process and provide resources to support you at every stage.  

Think of your collection article as a chapter in a growing book, with each contribution adding something new. Our goal is to make your publishing journey as smooth and rewarding as possible. 

“At the end of the day, we're more than just a publishing team. We're partners in supporting the research community. Because we come from research, academia, and publishing ourselves, we understand what really matters: visibility, quality, and impact.”

— Petia Apostolova, Head of Collections

Author satisfaction: what collections authors tell us

Your trust drives everything we do. We measure our success by your satisfaction, and your feedback helps us continue improving.  

Farah Aldabbagh, Research Analyst from Springer Nature’s Market Intelligence team, explains: “To track and monitor author satisfaction, we send all corresponding authors a survey after online publication of their article, asking them about the general overall satisfaction with the journal they published with, and then satisfaction with specific aspects of the publishing experience.”  

Our latest survey data shows that 83% of collection authors are happy with their experience; a strong result that reflects our ongoing commitment to delivering an exceptional author experience at every stage—from clear guidance and thoughtful editorial input to responsive communication and transparent updates throughout the publishing journey. 

That overall satisfaction is reflected in the detail, too. When we look at specific stages of the journey, authors consistently tell us what’s working. In 2025, more than 90% of authors rated the peer review process, editorial collaboration, communication, and production workflow highly, confirming that our dedicated teams deliver an outstanding author experience.  

So far this year, the results are tracking similarly: over 90% of authors felt peer review was useful in improving their manuscript, editor advice and comments were helpful, and their manuscript underwent an appropriate number of rounds, with reviewers that had a good understanding of their topic.

Authors also report a consistently strong service experience, including: 

• enquiries being answered promptly 

• helpful depth of information in responses 

• and clear updates on your manuscript status throughout the process

You should be able to publish with complete confidence, knowing you’ll be supported to help your manuscript reach its highest potential. This feedback from collection authors shows that our commitment is real and reinforced through continuous feedback and improvement.

Collections author experiences: visibility, impact and outcomes

Publishing in a Springer Nature collection enhances the reach and real-world impact of an article, and Dr Alfred Eboh from Kogi State University can testify to this. When he published his study on addressing malaria through healthcare expenditures in a Springer Nature collection, his work was academically recognised and referenced in the WHO’s World malaria report 2024. In this Q&A blog, Dr Eboh shares his experience publishing in the collection and the gratification of seeing it inform global policy.

“Publishing in a dedicated Springer Nature Collection has increased my work’s visibility among health systems researchers and donors. It's also strengthened my CV by demonstrating engagement with a focused, high-impact journal early in my career.” 

— Dr Alfred Eboh, Department of Sociology, Kogi State University, Nigeria

Megha Rao and her co-authors wanted to publish their research on health resource allocation in Malawi where it will reach the very people who could implement their findings and suggestions. Learn more about Rao’s experience publishing in the collection, and subsequent inquiries from policy makers about adapting and implementing her work across Africa

“Publishing in the Collection has given this research much greater visibility, specifically because it showcases the real-world application in Malawi. This has acted as a powerful proof-of-concept.[…] Collections offer an excellent opportunity to ensure one’s research contributes directly to a specific, impactful conversation, reaching the very people who can act on it. It’s about getting the work in front of the right audience, not just the biggest one.” 

- Megha Rao, Research Fellow for the Thanzi Labwino (Better Health) project

For Dr. Federico Virga, publishing his work in a Springer Nature collection not only enhanced the visibility of his research but also propelled his career to new heights. He adds, “I’ve already had two citations. I was also contacted by a student from outside Europe who asked me if I have a PhD position, and some companies have also been in touch to suggest we might collaborate. I can’t go into details yet, but some want feedback or to see if I can help them to develop specific tools related to my field.” 

“Publishing to the collection really was a great opportunity for me; I was extremely surprised and happy about the visibility I could get in a short time.” 

— Dr. Federico Virga developed his research in Italy (University of Turin), Belgium (VIB-KU Leuven) and Spain (CNIO and CNIC)  

Why authors choose Springer Nature collections

When you choose a Springer Nature collection, you gain:

• Expert guidance and dedicated support: We help you navigate publishing challenges with a dedicated team ready to support you. 

• Faster publishing for timely impact: We launch collections quickly to help your work reach the right audience sooner. 

• Research integrity and credibility: We uphold rigorous peer review standards, so your work is trusted and respected. 

• Global connections: Collections connect you to a thriving community of researchers and guest editors in your field. 

• Increased visibility: Articles published in collections receive more citations, downloads, and online attention, helping you build your academic reputation. 

• Continuous improvement: We listen to your feedback and develop our author services, so your experience only gets better. 

Benefits of publishing in a Springer Nature collection

When an article is part of a collection, it is easier to discover, attracts more attention, and reaches a broader audience. The data proves it: authors publishing in Springer Nature Collections enjoy 31% more citations, 30% more downloads, and 62% higher Altmetric scores than articles outside collections.

For researchers, publishing in Springer Nature collections means greater visibility, stronger influence, and deeper connections within their field.

Your publishing partner: support beyond submission

We see ourselves as more than just a publisher; we are your partners. Your research deserves a home where it is prioritised, cherished, and amplified; and that is exactly what we offer. Petia sums it up well: “We care deeply about your research and your success. Our team is dedicated to ensuring that your work reaches its full potential.”

If you’re interested in publishing your work in a Springer Nature collection, check out our dedicated Springer Nature collections website, where you can find interviews with guest editors, impact case studies, author success stories, and much more.

Related Content

• Safeguarding Springer Nature collections: the integrity checks you should know about

• What is a Collection? We Answer Your FAQs

• Unlocking Research Impact: What Is a Springer Nature Collection?

• Discover collections: An effective approach for enhancing article impact 

• Publishing to reach policymakers: Springer Nature Collections

• Publishing to a Collection: Impact for Early Career Researchers

• How Publishing in a Collection Ensured Malaria Control Guidance Reached Policymakers

• How to create a truly impactful collection: Insights from an editor-in-chief

• Guest Editor Q&A: Becoming a Springer Nature Guest Editor

• How Springer Nature Collections power SDG research

As an early-career researcher, you are producing work that matters. You are contributing new perspectives, asking new questions, and pushing knowledge forward. But once your work is written, submitted, or published, a familiar challenge often appears. How do you make sure the right people see it?

The visibility gap

Many early-career researchers describe a clear visibility gap. They want their research to be read, understood, and shared, but they are unsure how or where to begin. Publishing alone no longer guarantees attention, and yet the skills needed to communicate research effectively are rarely taught in a structured way.

Researchers frequently express uncertainty around communicating their findings beyond immediate field. Questions such as how to talk about research clearly, how to adapt messaging for different audiences, or which digital channels are worth using often go unanswered. At the same time, early career researchers are navigating publishing pressures, funding expectations, short‑term contracts, and heavy workloads. With so much to manage, research visibility can feel overwhelming or even optional.

This uncertainty does not reflect a lack of ambition or ability. It reflects a lack of practical guidance. Visibility is increasingly expected of researchers, but many are left to figure it out alone.

Research visibility and what it unlocks

When research visibility is approached thoughtfully, it can unlock far more than increased readership. Strong communication helps your work travel beyond traditional boundaries, opening up new professional and personal opportunities.

Clear and effective research communication can expand your reach by helping others grasp why your work matters. It can increase influence by making your ideas more accessible to researchers outside your immediate specialism, as well as to practitioners, policymakers, educators, and the wider public. Over time, this reach helps build recognition and establishes your expertise within your field.

Visibility also plays an important role in confidence. Seeing how your work is read, shared, and discussed helps you understand its real‑world relevance. This feedback can be motivating, especially at an early career stage when self‑doubt is common and progress can feel slow.

Professional opportunities often follow. Researchers who communicate their work clearly are better positioned when applying for funding, jobs, or fellowships. Visibility can lead to new collaborations by making your interests and expertise easier to find. It can also support teaching, outreach, and engagement activities that strengthen your academic profile.

Importantly, visibility does not mean self‑promotion for its own sake. It means helping your research reach the audiences it was always meant for.

Building researcher confidence through skills focused webinar

Recognising these challenges, a dedicated webinar titled “How to Promote Your Research” was designed with early career researchers in mind. The session was built as a researcher-first resource, focused on practical skills.

The webinar responds directly to the uncertainty many researchers feel about visibility and communication. Instead of abstract theory, it focuses on what research visibility actually looks like in practice today and which approaches can be applied immediately without adding unnecessary pressure.

The strong response to the session highlighted just how relevant this topic is. More than 560 researchers attended our last session live, demonstrating widespread interest in building confidence and capability around research communication. Throughout the session, participants asked thoughtful, practical questions that reflected real challenges they face in promoting their work.

One participant, postdoctoral researcher Maria Babakhanyan Stone, joined the webinar out of curiosity and a desire to build on her existing interest in science communication.

During her PhD, Maria invested significant effort in making astronomy accessible. She created YouTube explainer videos, developed visuals from her thesis figures, and ran workshops for learners of all ages. Communication had always been important to her, but the webinar introduced her to new ways of understanding how that work resonated.

When altmetrics were discussed, she decided to explore the publicly available download data for her PhD thesis at the University of Turku. What she found surprised her. Her astronomy thesis had been downloaded more frequently than others in the same topic area, topping usage rankings over a seven‑year period and ranking among the most downloaded astronomy theses of the past decade.

For Maria, this discovery revealed a hidden dimension of impact. It showed that her efforts to make science welcoming and engaging were reaching real readers. The numbers mattered, but what mattered more was the confirmation that her work was making a difference.

Her experience highlights how understanding visibility can strengthen confidence and reshape how researchers think about their contribution.

Join the next session

Building research visibility is not about changing who you are as a researcher. It is about learning how to help your work be seen, understood, and valued for what it already contributes.

If you are an early-career researcher who feels unsure about where to start with communication and visibility, the “How to Promote Your Research” webinar offers a practical and supportive next step. It is designed to help you develop skills that build confidence, expand reach, and open up new opportunities over time.

You can explore upcoming sessions and related resources here.

Related content

• Starting your career? Here’s how Springer can help you publish open access
• Discover journals: Open access funding options for our authors
• Open access in action—Stories from around the world: Hospices Civils de Lyon, France
• Open access in action—Stories from around the world: Dr Ruiz Serrano
• Navigating open access article processing charges: A guide for researchers

As the adoption of AI spreads, its potential to accelerate discovery and address global challenges is being tempered by mounting concerns over sustainability and equity. These questions took centre stage in early 2026, when The University of Tokyo and Springer Nature co-hosted the seventh SDG Symposium on AI and Sustainability—Opportunities and Challenges for a Sustainable Future. 

Artificial intelligence (AI) is now deeply entrenched within research and is widely anticipated to accelerate scientific discovery and help tackle global challenges. Yet there is another side to AI that cannot be ignored—immense consumption of electricity and water, dependence on scarce materials, and the reproduction, or even amplification, of existing inequalities. 

At the SDG Symposium, leaders from academia, publishing, industry and international organisations looked at both AI’s costs and benefits from a variety of perspectives. They were joined by about 500 global participants.  

Emerging from the symposium was a clear recognition that ‘sustainable AI’ is far more than a matter of technical and logistical optimisation; rather, it is a broader challenge that compels us to reconsider ethics, social structures, institutions, and patterns of resource distribution. 

In his opening remarks, Teruo Fujii, President of The University of Tokyo, stressed that this challenge demands collaboration among diverse actors, including leaders in the spheres of technology, industry, academia and policy. 

Physical constraints on the digital realm 

When interacting with AI through smartphones and laptops, it is easy to imagine that its computations occur somewhere nebulous in ‘the cloud’. In reality, AI is profoundly physical. 

Magdalena Skipper, Editor-in-Chief of Nature and Chief Editorial Adviser for Nature Portfolio, presented stark data on the direct environmental burdens of AI’s rapid uptake. Searches using generative AI consume four to five times more energy than conventional web searches. Large data centres also require vast quantities of cooling water. In one reported case, a regional cluster of data centres consumed about 6% of the area’s monthly water supply. 

What may appear modest in global aggregate terms could pose a major threat to local communities. Skipper stressed the importance of making these hidden burdens visible, suggesting that just as light bulbs carry energy information such as wattage, AI chatbots might also display a comparable indicator. 

A further warning came from Tshilidzi Marwala, Rector of the United Nations University and an under-secretary-general of the United Nations. Manufacturing AI hardware requires rare earth elements, whose extraction imposes substantial environmental and social costs. Marwala challenged prevailing growth models that seek to maximise shareholder returns. He also cautioned that infinite growth cannot be achieved with finite resources. 

The recycling rate for rare earths is currently below 1%. Unless sustainability is embedded from the earliest stages of hardware design—as a third core metric alongside cost and performance—AI development may run up against the limits of the planetary environment. 

The semiconductor industry’s responsibility 

Positioned at the leading edge of the physical infrastructure underpinning AI, the semiconductor industry is not insulated from these concerns. Yuji Ogino, global head of sustainability at the semiconductor production equipment manufacturer Tokyo Electron, pointed to projections suggesting that surging demand for AI devices could drive the semiconductor market to US$1 trillion by 2030. 

AI’s progress has been propelled by the miniaturisation and increasing integration density of semiconductors, but this entails a steep rise in electricity consumption of data centres, along with a corresponding rise in carbon-dioxide emissions. Technological advances must come with a transition in data-centre energy sources from fossil fuels to low-carbon alternatives, Ogino argued. 

In his view, ‘systemic governance’ requires simultaneous, integrated engagement with energy management and the environment, alongside ethics and human rights. In other words, governance cannot lag behind technological innovation. 

Elite capture or inclusive transformation? 

Another central theme? Fairness and equity, specifically, inclusion. Marwala noted that 80% of AI investment is concentrated in the United States and China. Left unchecked, such concentration risks expanding the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged. 

Ayyoob Sharifi, Professor in sustainability at Hiroshima University, explored both the promise and the peril of AI in smart-city development. Sharifi urged society to move beyond a narrowly technical imagination. The essential question, he argued, is not simply whether something can improve efficiency, but whether it advances justice and sustainability. 

Interlocking SDG targets 

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations are interdependent. Xin Zhou, Director of the AI and New Frontier Group at the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, highlighted the synergies and trade-offs involved. For example, progress in decarbonization (Goal 13) can yield spillover benefits for clean energy (Goal 7) and health (Goal 3); however, expansion of renewable energy may also compete with food systems or land use. 

Zhou expressed concern that policymaking too often remains siloed and argued that this is precisely where AI’s deeper value may lie. It could help visualise the complex interdependencies among water, energy and food systems, update risk maps in real time and support integrated policy decisions. 

But AI will not automatically repair fragmentation; it could just as easily deepen it. Whether AI accelerates sustainability or entrenches inequality and division, Zhou argued, will ultimately depend on governance. 

Physical AI and dialogue with society 

The symposium also considered the challenges posed by physical AI—AI moving beyond digital systems and into real-world space. Hironobu Takagi, Executive Director of the science museum Miraikan and senior researcher at IBM Research–Tokyo, highlighted the social dimensions of such a transition. 

Here, science communication is crucial. Social implementation depends on how sighted participants interact with the robot in demonstration trials and help co-create social rules needed for its use. 

From carbon reduction to social design 

The panel discussion broadened the debate. The moderator, Hiromi Yokoyama, Professor at the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe at The University of Tokyo, reframed the scale of the problem. Sustainable AI, she argued, is not merely about reducing carbon footprints; more fundamentally, it concerns how societies design the social, economic and governance systems in which AI is embedded. 

In practice, the primary beneficiaries of AI often differ from those who bear its costs—whether in the form of depleted water and electricity supplies, or the broader social burdens of intensified surveillance. These asymmetries are unevenly distributed across both geography and generations. 

Regulation cannot rest with a single actor, the panel agreed. Rather, it requires a multilayered approach spanning the international community, nation states and industry. Yet it also acknowledged sobering realities: regulatory evasion through loopholes, and unavoidable disparities in AI performance for languages and populations that remain poorly represented in data. Future AI systems, the discussion suggested, should disclose such limitations as explicitly as the side effects of drugs are disclosed. 

A future built on inclusive participation 

Perhaps the clearest message was that AI development suffers from a profound lack of transparency, accountability and cross-border, multilevel cooperation. Marwala argued that the overwhelming underrepresentation of Global South languages and cultures in AI training data was an ethical failure. 

Addressing this challenge from the perspective of scholarly publishing, Antoine Bocquet, Managing Director of Springer Nature Japan, pointed to another structural imbalance: the unequal distribution of knowledge that informs policymaking. Springer Nature’s analysis, he noted, found that 78% of the research cited in policy documents originates from authors in the Global North, revealing a persistent geographical asymmetry in whose knowledge counts. 

Kensuke Fukushi, Director of the Institute for Future Initiatives at The University of Tokyo, closed the symposium by emphasizing the value of academic collaboration as the foundation for dialogue and shared rule-making in an increasingly fragmented world. In a divided world, he suggested, scholarly collaboration is essential. 

The road to sustainable AI will not be smooth. A system in which the benefits of AI are monopolized by the powerful and by a limited number of advanced, affluent countries, while environmental and social burdens are displaced onto future generations and vulnerable regions, demands correction. 

The central question is whether AI can be transformed from something that intensifies environmental strain and inequality into an infrastructure that supports a sustainable society. The answer lies not within algorithms alone, but in the wisdom and governance of the people who design, use, regulate and learn to live alongside them. 

Discover more from our SDG programme — featuring events, blogs and publications on sustainability and research.

Related content:

• How SDG research drives policy: A special report 
• Can open access help SDG research achieve greater impact? 
• Researchers embrace AI. The disclosure gap is the challenge 

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

As a researcher, you’ve probably wondered whether your work is the right fit for a particular journal, or whether the journal is the right fit for you. Maybe your topic is niche. Maybe your institution doesn’t carry the kind of prestige that opens doors, or your methods or topic come from different disciplines. These doubts are understandable. Many journals favour research from well-funded settings, established institutions, and a narrow band of topics. That leaves a lot of unpublished research.

With more than 70 titles, the Discover journal series was created in response to this. The series is an open access (OA) imprint within Springer Nature’s portfolio of over 600 fully OA journals, one of the largest OA portfolios in the world.

What does representation mean at Discover?

For Discover journals, representation means one thing: all good research deserves to be published, on its merits alone. In practice, this means your paper won’t be screened out because of your research area, a regional focus, or if your approach crosses subject boundaries.

For early career researchers (ECRs), this is reassuring. Many researchers will recognise that sense of doubt when submitting work: Is my article relevant or novel enough? Discover journals embed representation through:

• broad aims and scope that welcome interdisciplinary research and non-traditional article types
• a commitment to publishing valid work, not on its perceived novelty or impact but solely on its own merits
• OA publishing under a Creative Commons licence, free to read, share and reuse
• financial support through institutional agreements and article processing charge (APC) waivers, so that who can publish isn’t determined by who can afford to

Our mission at Springer Nature is to facilitate inclusion. We believe that “research progress depends on the inclusion of diverse perspectives, and the best research emerges when researchers from all backgrounds are empowered to contribute fully.” Discover journals are designed to deliver on this policy.

Watch this author interview compilation video to hear researchers from different disciplines, locations, and career stages share how publishing in Discover journals helped them reach the right audience for their interdisciplinary and emerging research.

OA and community reach

For Atique Ishrak Anik and Vicky Xu, OA wasn’t a publishing preference. It was the point of publishing. Both chose Discover journals because their research was written for specific communities, and those communities needed to be able to read it.

Atique Ishrak Anik is a civil engineer and researcher at Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh. He leads a multi-disciplinary team that covers structural engineering, environmental research, and social science. His focus is on developing sustainable alternatives to high-emission building materials and practical housing solutions for people living in low- and middle-income country contexts.

Anik chose Discover Civil Engineering because its OA model ensures his work reaches the researchers and practitioners who need it most. For him, publishing OA isn't a secondary consideration but the foundation of his work; without it, essential findings would be locked behind expensive subscription barriers.

“We want to publish our study to a wide global area, without any subscription barriers. That's why we think Discover Civil Engineering is a good home for our work.”

— Atique Ishrak Anik, Discover Civil Engineering

Vicky Xu is Research Associate at the University of Sydney and a clinical psychology registrar. She designed a research project on emotion regulation. When it came to publishing their findings, her team chose Discover Psychology—now celebrating its 5th anniversary—for its OA model and broad scope, spanning clinical, cognitive, organisational, and social psychology. Their paper attracted media interest, and a plain-language version was subsequently published, bringing the findings directly to the public.

“It was really important to us that our findings would have the biggest reach.”

— Vicky Xu, Discover Psychology

Diverse teams, disciplines, and geographies

Representation is evident in who is producing research and where it originates. Discover journals publish a varied mix of researchers representing different disciplines, countries, and career stages, including the four researchers featured below.

Ayesha Nehvi published her first research paper, analysing why psychology students avoid certain specialisms, while studying at the University of Limerick, Ireland. Discover Psychology provided an APC waiver that allowed the student-focused study to become OA, ensuring the target community could access the research.

Dr. Sara Causevic, a postdoctoral fellow at Stockholm University, Sweden, is a public health researcher. A paper she co-authored on AI and forest protection took her outside her usual field and brought together colleagues from climate finance and remote sensing technology. The paper was published in Discover Conservation.

Dr. Paul Awoyera, an associate professor of civil engineering at Prince Mohammed bin Fahd University, Saudi Arabia, is developing alternative construction materials that reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions in buildings. Dr Awoyera chose Discover Sustainability because its OA model ensures the findings reach not only researchers but the engineers who can act on them.

Enoch Leung, a student and course instructor at McGill University, Canada, leads an interdisciplinary team researching inclusive education and support for LGBTQ+ youth in schools. The team chose Discover Education (also celebrating its fifth anniversary this year) for its commitment to equity and its reach across education and psychology. For Leung, open access was essential; the findings had to reach the educators and counsellors working with students, as well as academics.

“Research done for the community, by the community.”

— Vicky Xu, Discover Psychology

Choosing a journal: why representation matters

Choosing where to publish is an important task. To get it right, ask yourself the following questions:

• Does the journal welcome research across disciplines and subjects, including interdisciplinary and applied work?
• Are the editorial board and published author lists geographically and demographically diverse?
• Is the journal fully OA, with potential APC coverage or funding options available, if required?

Discover journals can answer yes to all three. To see how this fits into Springer Nature’s broader commitment to global inclusion, visit our Global Inclusion in Research Publishing web page for practical tools and resources.

Being representative isn’t an afterthought at Springer Nature. It affects careers and knowledge alike, and prioritising inclusion helps ensure good work doesn’t go unpublished or unread because of where it came from or who could afford to access it.

Whatever your field, your background, or your career stage, we think your work deserves a trusted home. Explore the Discovery journal series and consider us for your next submission.

Featured research

• Atique Ishrak Anik, Discover Civil Engineering
  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44290-024-00018-6

• Vicky Xu, Discover Psychology
  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-023-00111-4

• Ayesha Nehvi, Discover Psychology
  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-024-00189-4

• Sara Causevic, Discover Conservation
  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44353-024-00002-2

• Paul Awoyera, Discover Sustainability
  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00655-y

• Enoch Leung, Discover Education
  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-022-00016-9

Related Content

• Discover journals: Open access funding options for our authors
• Case study: How one collection led to real-world policy impact and academic recognition
• The value of null results: How Discover champions inclusive science
• Why Discover journals are an ideal outlet for SDG-focused research
• Infographic | The benefits of publishing null results
• More than just a number: How new impact factors help Discover authors
• Discover collections: An effective approach for enhancing article impact
• Responsive, inclusive, and reactive: Going behind the scenes at Discover
• Inclusive, Global and Interdisciplinary: Discover journals break with tradition
• Discover: A portfolio of inclusive, open access journals

Where you publish can shape not only who reads your research, but who you reach through it. Expert-led collections connect your work to specialists, relevant audiences, and a focused scholarly conversation. As guest editors and contributors share the collection through their own networks, your article can gain greater visibility, expert feedback, and opportunities for connection and collaboration.

In this blog, you’ll see how Springer Nature collections offer something different: an expert-led publishing route designed to help your work find the right context, the right audience, and the right scholarly conversation.

A collection brings together related articles under a shared theme within an existing journal or across journals. Led by expert guest editors, it gives your work context, visibility, and a clearer place within an evolving research conversation. That expert-led context can also bring an immediate sense of credibility.

“For an ECR, the immediate value comes from the credibility it provides. Being included in a curated Collection by established editors acts as a 'stamp of approval' and effectively positions my work within the most relevant community of experts and policymakers.”

 ―  Megha Rao, Research Fellow for the Thanzi Labwino (Better Health) project

Prefer the highlights? Watch the short video below for a quick summary of how publishing in a collection can help you connect with experts in your research area and the benefits this brings to your professional profile and research.

The value of an expert-led collection

When you are deciding where to submit your research, you want to know that the people behind the publication understand your field and appreciate the value of your work. That makes the guest editor leading a collection an important part of the decision. 

At Springer Nature, guest editors are selected for their expertise in their fields. They shape the collection around the most pressing questions and developments in the area, ensuring that contributions are relevant and valuable. In practice, this gives you greater confidence that your work will be considered in the right scholarly context by people who understand its significance and contribution. 

Guest editor insights: If you want to understand how expert-led collections take shape, hear from two ECR guest editors as they share the steps they took to create, curate, and promote their collection, and the role that specialist insight played throughout.

A clearer publishing route for timely research

Guest editors help define the topic, shape the scope, invite contributions from researchers with relevant expertise, assess scientific validity and topic relevance, and promote the collection across their communities. That specialist oversight is critical because it gives the collection a clear scholarly focus from the start.  

As such, you can be confident that your research is contributing to a carefully developed theme that has been built with close attention to current developments and urgent research needs, such as:

• what is happening in the field 
• what questions are gaining momentum 
• and what kinds of research are most needed right now

Help your article appear where interest is already growing

This advantage is particularly valuable in fast-moving fields. Research sometimes progresses more quickly than the publishing landscape can accommodate. New technologies and interdisciplinary questions can quickly become important, yet there may not be an obvious journal category that reflects the direction of the conversation.  

Collections help bridge that gap by organizing research around specific themes or timely issues, making it easier for your article to be published in contexts where interest is already growing and where the conversation is already taking shape.

“Collections offer an excellent opportunity to ensure one’s research contributes directly to a specific, impactful conversation, reaching the very people who can act on it. It’s about getting the work in front of the right audience, not just the biggest one.” 

―  Megha Rao, Research Fellow for the Thanzi Labwino (Better Health) project 

Visibility that helps you build momentum

Increased visibility is vital for early-career researchers. Building a profile involves publishing in the right places where your work has the best chance of being discovered, understood, and cited. A collection can assist by placing your article alongside other relevant work on a timely topic, increasing the likelihood that peers and senior researchers will find it.  

Moreover, collection articles typically receive, on average, 31% more citations and 30% more downloads than non-collection articles, making this visibility particularly beneficial when establishing your reputation.

In an interview with early career researcher and Springer Nature guest editor, Christopher S. Rozek, he says “Another nice part—as an early career researcher—is that it increases your visibility in the field; it’s an opportunity to work with big-name scholars.” 

“the visibility you get from strong indexing and a respected publisher like Springer Nature isn't a vanity metric: it directly leads to the citations and collaboration opportunities that are essential for building a sustainable academic career.”

―  Megha Rao, Research Fellow for the Thanzi Labwino (Better Health) project 

Confidence in fit, focus, and audience

Knowing that a collection is guided by an expert guest editor can make the submission decision feel less uncertain. You are not submitting your work to a wide audience, hoping that the right people will find it later. You are contributing to a research theme shaped with a clear sense of what is timely and worthwhile. This clarity offers reassurance, ensuring your research is assessed accurately. 

“We had very specific ideas about topics we wanted covered and perspectives we wanted included. We worked closely with our author teams to ensure that the papers they were contributing would relate to those topics and perspectives.”

― Christopher S. Rozek, Springer Nature Guest Editor

Publishing as part of a bigger conversation

Research develops through shared questions and peer exchanges. Collections foster a collaborative environment by bringing together researchers tackling similar problems from diverse perspectives. This means your paper contributes to a larger dialogue rather than standing alone, facilitating connections and future collaborations. Guest editors often curate collections that reflect the breadth of the conversation while maintaining a strong intellectual focus. 

In fact, Carlton J. Fong, an early career researcher and first-time guest editor, saw guest editing as an opportunity to connect with scholars beyond his existing network. You can read his full interview here. 

ECR Tip: In an interview with early career researcher and collections author, Megha Rao, she advises other ECR’s to “look for a Collection that tells a story your research can contribute to. [...] Being part of a curated Collection amplifies your message and places your work in context. For an ECR, this is invaluable.” 

Questions to ask before choosing a collection

If you're considering submitting to a collection, examine the leadership closely. Ask yourself whether the guest editor understands the direction of your field, if the theme addresses the questions your community is asking, and whether the collection aligns with your research goals. 

For emerging, trending, and interdisciplinary topics, the answer is often yes. The right collection can do more than provide a route to publication. It can help your research become part of a visible, expert-led conversation that supports connection, credibility, and impact.

If you’re interested in publishing your work in a Springer Nature collection, check out our dedicated collections content hub, where you can find interviews with guest editors, impact case studies, author success stories, and much more.

Related content

• The guest editors shaping collection 
• Guest Editor Q&A: Becoming a Springer Nature Guest Editor
• Inside the author experience: what collection authors say and what to expect 
• Collections: helping researchers working in emerging and trending areas get noticed 
• Get your research in front of the audiences that matter 
• Safeguarding Springer Nature collections: the integrity checks you should know about 
• How Springer Nature Collections power SDG research 
• How to create a truly impactful collection: Insights from an editor-in-chief

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Source Monthly Digest!

Demonstrating how research contributes to real-world change is an increasing priority for institutions working towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  As explored in The publication-to-policy connection: Supporting the real-world impact of research, impact depends not only on producing high-quality evidence, but on how effectively it is translated, shared, and applied in policy and practice. This case study builds on that perspective by examining the work of AE4RIA (the Alliance of Excellence for Research and Innovation on Aephoria), showing how a systems-based approach, combining integrated data, stakeholder collaboration and aligned financing, can help move research beyond policy influence into coordinated, implementable action.

Springer Nature’s recent report, From publications to policy: the impact of research towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, shows that evidence is already shaping national and international policymaking when it comes to the SDGs. But ensuring that research is not only accessed, but also acted upon, requires more than visibility. It requires the capacity to translate knowledge into coordinated, implementable action.

For institutions committed to strengthening research impact, supporting multi-stakeholder collaboration, or contributing to national sustainability agendas, AE4RIA (the Alliance of Excellence for Research and Innovation on Aephoria) offers a practical and replicable framework. Working at the intersection of economics, earth systems science, and policy, their systems-driven approach is grounded in integrated data, stakeholder co-design, and aligned financing to help move the SDGs from ambition into action.

Through the work of AE4RIA, Director and co-chair of the 2027 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Report, Professor Phoebe Koundouri and colleagues explain how a systems‑based approach can help institutions move research beyond policy influence into tangible, funded outcomes.

The implementation gap: from framework to delivery

For AE4RIA, the SDGs provide a powerful framework for addressing what Professor Koundouri describes as a “permanent multi-crisis” across environmental, economic and social systems. “The SDGs for us are a brilliant science-based structure that can allow us to move away from the permanent multi-crisis of natural, social, and economic systems into a sustainable pathway,” she explains.

However, while global progress has been significant (196 countries signing the SDGs and 20% implementation in just ten years), translating this framework into delivery remains complex. The challenge is not only political or financial, but structural. “Even the most developed countries lack the capacity to organize the necessary data, modelling, stakeholders, or funding approaches, and very few people work on this kind of large-scale integration,” Professor Koundouri adds. “Those who do are mainly scientists, and they don’t have continuous interaction with policymakers, governments, and all the other stakeholders needed to implement change.”

For institutions, this highlights that producing high-quality research is not enough to impact the SDGs. Success depends on the ability to connect evidence across disciplines, stakeholders, and systems in ways that support implementation.

A systems approach to research impact

AE4RIA’s methodology is designed to address this gap by translating the SDGs into actionable, financed transition pathways. At its core is a systems-based approach that integrates four interconnected domains, nature, infrastructure, economy and society, recognising that progress in one depends on coordinated change across all.

Professor Koundouri outlined the methodology’s three structured steps:

1. Measure and understand where you are 
   Using integrated data frameworks, AE4RIA helps define where a country, region, or sector currently stands in relation to SDG targets. “We have continuous monitoring and assessment of the scale we want to work on. We have co-developed with other institutions an extensive framework of matrices that allow you to quantify where you are.” 

2. Develop pathways that cross silos and sectors
   Next, stakeholders work together to map out how to move from the current state to SDG-aligned outcomes. “We make explicit where we are, where we want to go, and then we design systems-based pathways that allow the transition for each sector of the economy to a sustainable interaction between the four main systems: nature, infrastructure, economy, and society.” The process is iterative and co-designed with stakeholders at each stage. 

   Underpinning this step is an integrated modelling system – a “digital twin” of the economy and environment – which allows stakeholders to test transition pathways before implementation. By simulating different scenarios, stakeholders can identify trade-offs, understand cross-sector impacts, and prioritise the most effective interventions.

3. Align financing with the transition
   “The third step is to secure the money and instruments needed to deliver the plan described in step two.” This involves identifying funding sources, designing blended finance strategies, and structuring portfolios of projects that can realistically be delivered. For institutions, this reinforces a critical point: research impact depends not only on generating evidence, but on connecting that evidence to real-world funding and delivery mechanisms.

Putting systems thinking into practice: Living Labs

AE4RIA implements this approach through structured “living labs”: collaborative environments where research, policy, and practice come together to design and test real-world solutions.

For institutions, living labs offer a practical model for embedding research within decision-making processes, bringing together policymakers, industry, researchers, financiers, and civil society to co-develop solutions grounded in both evidence and local context. “We have developed different case studies across Europe, bringing together stakeholders to co-design the problem, the capacity on the ground, and potential solutions”, Phoebe Koundouri explains. 

One example focused on improving the climate resilience of Mediterranean ports (and by extension SDG13 and SDG14). Stakeholders included port authorities, ministries, businesses, financial institutions, regulators, NGOs, and researchers. These groups first agreed on the current state using shared data and modelling insights. They then co-designed a future vision and year-by-year transition actions to reach SDG targets. A digital innovation platform, BRIGAID, supported knowledge sharing and the integration of market-ready climate adaptation solutions.

Enabling collaboration: Engagement and digital infrastructure

Co-development of solutions like this relies heavily on participation from a wide range of stakeholders, which can be a challenge. “It’s a volunteering process, but it’s costly,” explains Eleni Toli, Senior Researcher, AE4RIA. Maintaining participation relies on transparency and accountability, as well as financial support for key contributors.

“Sometimes you start with high ambitions and engagement, but after some time, people tend to be less involved. It’s also a burden for the organisers. It’s important that key stakeholders are reimbursed for their work and also supported in doing [it].” - Eleni Toli, Senior Researcher, AE4RIA

These challenges directly informed AE4RIA’s development of digital tools to support its Living Labs. These tools function as shared knowledge infrastructure, providing democratic access to information, a record of actions, and continuous collaboration across stakeholders.

Crucially, the platform connects participants to the underlying modelling system, enabling stakeholders to move beyond discussion to evidence-based decision-making. Different policy options, investment choices, or technological interventions can be explored and tested within the model, helping participants understand trade-offs, identify synergies across sectors, and anticipate economic and social impacts before implementation.

Ensuring knowledge transfer and scalability

AE4RIA’s approach is designed to scale learnings from one setting can be applied in others, without having to start again from scratch. “The systems thinking and modelling approach aims to cover all countries in the world”, explains Professor Koundouri.

Using a taxonomy of similarity (economic, political, policy or socioeconomic similarity), elements of a case study can be transferred and replicated to others across the region. While transferred pathways may not have the same level of detail as a full case study, they provide a strong foundation for integration into national plans. For institutions, this demonstrates how research impact can extend beyond individual projects, contributing to broader, transferable solutions.

Springer Nature’s SDG report highlights the growing connection between research and policy. AE4RIA’s work demonstrates what it takes to extend that connection into implementation.  For institutions, the opportunity now lies in moving beyond knowledge production and dissemination to actively supporting the systems that enable research to be used, connecting data, stakeholders and funding in ways that translate research into delivery.

Take a closer look at the report: From publications to policy: The impact of research towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

About Professor Dr. Phoebe Koundouri

Professor Dr. Phoebe Koundouri is a globally renowned mathematical economist who has pioneered human-centred, interdisciplinary modelling systems for the sustainable interaction between nature, society, and the economy. She brings nearly 30 years of academic leadership and research excellence at leading institutions, including the University of Cambridge, University College London (UCL), the London School of Economics (LSE), the University of Reading, and the Technical University of Denmark. She is consistently ranked among the top 2% of world scientists in multiple prestigious international listings, with an academic record that includes 21 books, more than 800 published papers, over 100 large-scale research projects, and measurable impact in more than 120 countries.

She is currently Professor at the School of Economics, Athens University of Economics and Business (AUEB); Visiting Professor at the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge; and Senior Research Fellow at Peterhouse, University of Cambridge, her alma mater. She is the Founder of the Alliance of Excellence for Research and Innovation on Aeiphoria (AE4RIA), a global research and innovation network bringing together more than 200 researchers. AE4RIA is anchored in ReSEES.AE4RIA at AUEB and SDU.AE4RIA at the ATHENA Information Technology Research Center, both research centres directed by Professor Koundouri.

Related content

• The publication-to-policy connection: Supporting the real-world impact of research
• Supporting global open data through what really works
• The Continuing Rise of Collaboration
• The state of research assessment: Insights from a survey of 6,600+ researchers
• Publishing SDG research: Initiatives that support your institution’s efforts

Don't miss the latest news & blogs, subscribe to The Link Alerts! 

This post is the second in a blog series focused on researchers’ experiences with open science practices, highlighting the impact of sharing data, code and protocols openly.   

Professor Zornitza Stark is a clinical geneticist at the Victorian Clinical Genetics Services in Melbourne, Australia. She works in the field of translational genomics, specialising in rare diseases. As a senior researcher, Zornitza Stark has wide publishing experience, with recent articles published in Nature Portfolio journals, such as this Call to action to scale up research and clinical genomic data sharing and Feasibility, acceptability and clinical outcomes of the BabyScreen+ genomic newborn screening study. She is also Associate Editor for NPJ Genomic Medicine and has frequently published in the European Journal of Human Genetics.  

We asked Professor Stark to share her experiences of open science practices and the impact that open data sharing has on patients and their families.

Can you briefly introduce yourself and your research area?  

I'm a clinician researcher, so my time is split between clinical work and research. My research tends to be very translational; it's closely related to the type of clinical work that I do, which is primarily with families affected by rare disease. There are several projects that we're currently working on, including genomic newborn screening. We are also exploring how to leverage machine learning and artificial intelligence approaches to scale up the analysis or reanalysis of genomic data. I'm heavily involved in novel gene discovery for rare conditions and research into how to speed up the implementation of genomic testing into clinical practice, in particular how to generate the evidence that governments and policymakers need to fund it as part of healthcare. A big portion of my work involves working out the health economics for specific clinical applications of genomics. 

How did you first become interested in open science practices?  

Translational genomics is a relatively new field, which involves the application of new technologies. Working out how to do it is heavily dependent on sharing knowledge, but genomics also depends on the sharing of data; we need data for as many individuals as possible to work out what is rare and significant.  

As a community, we share data using specific genetics platforms, such as Gene Matcher, ClinVar, and Shariant (an Australian genomics-led variant sharing initiative). I also lead PanelApp Australia, a platform for sharing information on gene–disease associations for diagnostic use. Through this platform , we contribute to the Gene Curation Coalition, which is an international aggregation database of gene-disease relationships. 

In addition to data sharing, what open science practices do you use? 

From the sharing of code right through to how to conduct an economic evaluation as a protocol, or publishing a paper open access, we’re sharing knowledge on how to do relatively new tasks, because we're all new to this field.  

What motivated you to adopt these practices?  

“Open science ensures we share knowledge as quickly as possible, because that's what impacts both research and clinical outcomes” 

                              Zornitza Stark, Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Melbourne, Australia  

I think most people are in medicine and research for altruistic reasons. I believe in the underlying premise of open science. We are also generally funded by public funds, and work in a public healthcare system. I strongly feel that public funds should be used to create public goods. 

Open science also ensures we share knowledge as quickly as possible, because that's what impacts both research and clinical outcomes. And those two are very closely intertwined in my type of work. 

Have you ever faced any particular challenges or barriers in undertaking open science practices?  

For the area that I work in, there is a lot of dependence on infrastructure. We know there is willingness from patients and research participants to share their data — that’s generally not a barrier — and most researchers also feel the same way. When we have been held back, it has been through a lack of political will to resolve potential legal issues and the lack of investment in large-scale infrastructure that would enable much more data sharing to occur. 

As an example, as a federated country, Australia has not been able to create a centralised Australian genomic dataset that could aggregate genomic data from across the country. This is due to a lack of investment in infrastructure and agreement between all the parties that we can share across borders. Contrast that to the National Genomic Research Library set up in England, which has managed to aggregate hundreds of thousands of datasets into a single infrastructure that can be queried by researchers. 

Is there a particular success story or example you're proud of that illustrates the benefits of open science?

“Sharing data openly has also had an impact on citations: being recognised by the international community as a contributor increases the visibility of our work.” 

                                                                                                      Zornitza Stark, Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Melbourne, Australia  

We have been better at organising data sharing for other types of data, including data at gene variant level, which is crucially important in terms of facilitating the accurate interpretation of genomic data. Because it is considered to be more de-identified, there has been less objection, and we have been able to build the necessary infrastructure to share this data type. As a country, this infrastructure has enabled us to participate in international databases such as ClinVar, massively accelerating our submission to this open international resource. 

Having our own data accessible in both national and international databases actually alerts us when we have potentially misinterpreted something. It allows researchers to get in touch with us if they disagree with our assessment, which is often very helpful because it can have an impact on patient diagnosis. From a research perspective, it has enabled us to participate in the assembly of international cohorts of patients with rare diseases because it has alerted other researchers that there are patients in Australia with those conditions and provided a means to get in touch with the clinicians and the families to participate in that international effort. This has helped us to understand the natural history of rare conditions better and to link families with emerging therapies for rare diseases.  

Another area to highlight that is almost entirely dependent on open data sharing is the discovery of new gene–disease associations; data sharing massively accelerates gene discovery. For example, the discovery of the RNU4-2 gene a couple of years ago was made possible through large-scale data sharing; a cohort of over 100 patients was assembled within a matter of weeks. It was a groundbreaking discovery, because we think this one gene accounts for nearly 1% of all cases of intellectual disability. 

Sharing data openly has also had an impact on citations; being recognised by the international community as a contributor increases the visibility of our work. 

How do you advise early career researchers on open science best practices? 

For us, open science is the accepted way of working. Occasionally, I guess people may feel reluctant to share their work because they feel anxious about competition. My role as a senior researcher is to deal with those anxieties and instead emphasise all the benefits of being part of the international community and large-scale collaboration. Working this way just massively increases our capacity to produce world-class research. 

Are there any gaps in support or resources about open science you’d like to see addressed?  

The principal issue is infrastructure as an enabling factor. We need much more strategic planning and high-level support that extends beyond individual projects or groups, backed with investment and the enabling infrastructure to magnify the benefits of open access to data. For example, several of the datasets that we've generated over the past decade are no longer available or accessible because the funding for a particular project finished. Although the participants consented to data sharing, with the lack of infrastructure for data deposition, these data have now been lost, which has been heartbreaking to watch. 

What advice would you give to researchers considering adopting open science practices?  

"My advice is always to embrace open science and to be an active participant in the international community; that will enrich your research and also your life.” 

                                                                                                          Zornitza Stark, Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Melbourne, Australia  

I think my advice is always to embrace open science and to be an active participant in the international community, and that will only enrich your research and also your life.  

There is much greater recognition of the importance of open science, and there is momentum: we have seen investment in large-scale projects in several countries, including the US and UK. They have created the opportunity to build some of the enabling infrastructure to create trusted research environments and develop and implement the standards that will enable data sharing. The demonstration that something is possible, and how to do it, is really important to move people forward in creating similar investments and participating together in these endeavours, and I hope will accelerate open science practices further. 

Learn more about open science and sharing research data, code and protocols & methods openly

Related content:

• Open science conversations:

1. Building trust through transparency: An open science conversation with Geir Kjetil Sandve
2. Bioinformatician Johannes Koester on embodying the spirit of open science
3. How to do science that matters: Computational biologist Casey S. Greene on purpose-driven open science practices 
4. Open science before it had a name: An interview with molecular biologist Steven Henikoff 
5. Building the infrastructure for open science: A conversation with Carole Goble 

•  Best practices for transparency and reuse: 

1. How to share your research protocols and methods openly 

2. How to share your research code openly 

• Supporting open science practices: 

1. Why share your research data? 

2. Why sharing protocols matters 

3. Why sharing your code matters 

• Starting your career? Here’s how Springer can help you publish open access 

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

The 2025 State of Open Data report looks back at a decade of survey responses from researchers to see how attitudes, behaviours, and policies around open data have evolved. In this blog, we explore the impact of data sharing more personally, through individual experiences of shared data. What happens when the barriers to data sharing are overcome, and how can shared data make an impact beyond one’s own work?  

By opening and sharing their data, researchers gain more visibility and credibility for their work. When data is open, individual studies can more effectively support long-term scientific progress. Results can be verified and contribute to creating new knowledge across disciplines. 

In the 2025 State of Open Data report, we learned that researchers recognise the benefits of sharing open data, and that familiarity with FAIR principles (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability) has risen sharply. The report also highlights that researchers still face challenges around reuse, recognition, and infrastructure.  

But what does data sharing and its benefits and challenges look like in practice? While writing the 2025 report, we spoke with researchers, librarians, and data experts about open data. For this blog, we collected their real-world examples of how data sharing has shaped research and collaboration. 

From data sharing to enabling reuse at scale 

When data is openly shared, it can become a reusable resource far beyond its original purpose. Brian Nosek, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Open Science and Psychology Professor at the University of Virginia in the United States, saw this happen with his data on bias.  

Nosek developed Project Implicit in 1998 with Mazarin Bonaji and Tony Greenwald. Project Implicit was a popular website that allowed people to measure their own implicit biases, and for twenty years, more than a million people a year contributed to the project.  

“It generated enormous amounts of data that could be used for all kinds of social and behavioural research,” Nosek explains. In 2013, when he opened the Center for Open Science, the Project Implicit team suggested to add its data: “No one else has such a data source, it's totally unique.”  

Project Implicit data is shared systematically every year, and it has generated enormous numbers of cross-disciplinary research applications in epidemiology, political science, sociology, and behavioural medicine. “These things are way beyond the work that we did with implicit bias and it just wouldn't have happened without making the data available. It’s been very exciting and gratifying to see it get reused that way,” Nosek says. 

This example shows how unexpected and rich the contribution of open data can be, and why sustained availability and documentation can mean long-lasting impact.   

Connecting data to unlock new insights 

Combining datasets can create knowledge that no single dataset could deliver. Melissa Haendel PhD, FACMI, is Sarah Graham Kenan Distinguished Professor, Director of Precision Health and Translational Informatics, Deputy Director of Computational Sciences – NC Tracs, The University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine in the United States. She shares from her experience of linking and interpreting information to improve outcomes. 

Together with Chris Mungall at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and with support of international collaborators, Haendel leads the Monarch Initiative. This initiative brings a variety of different open data sources together from humans and model organisms. “Once we've integrated the data, we can use it to improve the diagnosis of patients with rare diseases, really bringing those open data resources to the point of care, and using the data to help improve the lives of patients with rare diseases,” Haendel explains.  

In another project, the All of Us Research Program aims to recruit a million participants from across the United States, from diverse races, demographics, social structures, and religion. The study collects survey data, wearable data, genomic data, and electronic health record data. At the Center for Linkage and Acquisition of Data, Haendel and colleagues link that data to a variety of other data sources.  

“Participants have agreed to share, but not all of them are able to get their data into the program,” she explains. “We've partnered with a national health information network, eHealth Exchange, to go retrieve their electronic health record, and bring it back into the system. This is the first time anybody's ever done this, and it is so exciting because we finally actually have representation of their actual data from the place where they're receiving care.” 

Haendel’s work shows that interoperability and linkage can lead to meaningful impact. When data is available to be combined, value emerges, from research to healthcare and beyond.  

From open data to real-world and societal outcomes 

An example like Haendel’s Monarch Initiative also exhibits how data sharing can directly support cultural, health, or societal outcomes. Joy Owango, Founding Director of Training Centre in Communication (TCC Africa) in Kenya, illustrates how data sharing can have societal impact by supporting communities in preserving, managing, and sharing knowledge. 

The National Museum of Nigeria contacted TCC Africa because they are digitising and launching their digital library. This is a first step in data management; collect, curate, store, and share. But many questions arise: “How do you store it? Where do you store it? Now they are thinking about what kind of technology they can use to share our indigenous knowledge and protect our sovereignty. Something that acknowledges our ownership and contribution to research,” Owango explains. 

Impact is not only about citations and publications. Considerations of ethics, ownership, and trust are essential, as this experience shows.  

Catalysing collaboration and paradigm shifts 

Data sharing can lead to new collaborations and broader networks. Dawei Zhang is Deputy Director of the National Materials Corrosion and Protection Data Centre, and Professor at the School of Advanced Materials Innovation, University of Science and Technology Beijing in China. His shared data led to new and exciting collaborations that opened new research directions in the field. 

Zhang’s group was the first in the world to use AI models to process data obtained by a corrosion sensor in a typical atmospheric environment in China. The results showed that the combination of high-throughput corrosion data and AI models could help understand and even predict how materials can degrade.  

“A leading Croatian scientist in Belgium asked if we could share the data,” Zhang shares. “At that time only a minority of people wanted to believe that this data-driven machine learning model, which we often call black boxes, could lead to something that is really transformative. By using the data we shared, they not only published several very important works, but also helped us broaden our impact and extend the collaboration to many other countries,” Zhang explains.  

These collaborators from different countries are now driving the transformation of the entire corrosion research paradigm. Zhang’s experience exemplifies how sharing data can lead to collaboration, which can accelerate new insights, paradigm shifts, and scientific development.  

From data shared to data reused: What your data needs to create impact 

The 2025 State of Open Data report shows that the foundations for open data are in place. They should be strengthened and supported to make data sharing the standard across the research community. The impact stories above are just a few examples from across disciplines around the globe, that illustrate how meaningful intentional sharing can be providing data are curated, documented, and well-governed. As we’ve seen in the 2025 State of Open Data report, and as amplified in these stories, openness alone is not enough.  

Making shared data count is not only about making it available, but ensuring it can be reused in meaningful ways. Infrastructures, standards, and services are required to enable data to travel across geographical locations and scientific disciplines to deliver more impact.  

These impact stories illustrate what is possible when openness is combined with intention and purpose. If your work generates high-quality data, share it to create your own impact story. Turn your work into a resource that can drive reuse, collaboration, and long-term impact.  

Get resources and support to share your data openly in Springer Nature’s Open Science hub, and explore the 2025 State of Open Data report to learn more about global attitudes towards open data.  

Related content

• Supporting open science practices: Why share your research data? 
• Open data sharing: What a decade of researcher insights tells us Starting your career?
• Starting your career? Here’s how Springer can help you publish open access 

Don't miss the latest news and blogs, sign up to The Researcher's Source Monthly Digest! 

You know Springer as a trusted name, trust that is nearly two decades in the making. Springer’s reputation is rooted in a habit of adaptation to an ever-evolving research landscape, to support its research communities to do their best work. When this work is shared and communicated effectively, it inspires change, fosters collaboration, and drives action.

Here’s a glimpse into how Springer’s legacy took shape, and how its adaptive, forward-looking approach reflected in its response to major shifts in scholarly communication, like digitalisation and open access. And most importantly, how this legacy continues to guide our work today.

“Within the Springer Nature family, each member serves researchers in its distinct way, always underpinned by trusted scholarship. With its long publishing heritage, Springer brings a particularly strong combination of global reach and discoverability, rigorous editorial and integrity standards, and guidance and support throughout the publication journey.”

Nearly two centuries of scholarly communication have passed since Julius Springer founded a small publishing house in Berlin in 1842. Springer has been growing alongside the development of modern research, adapting to its evolution, and responding to the changing needs to its research communities.

Your work is shaped by your research community and field, and by the methods, standards, practices, and tools that you use. As these evolve, so do expectations around how research is produced, validated, and shared. To best support researchers, Springer evolves and adapts as well. Working closely with research communities, it innovates to accommodate the evolving landscape, while always remaining grounded in integrity and rigour.

“Working with Springer has enlarged my own visibility, because Springer is a renowned publisher and has a wide readership in those areas in which I publish, which increases my own visibility.” 

- Dr. Bernice Bovenkerk, author of Beyond Natural, Normal, Necessary, Nice: Introducing ‘Neglectable’ as a Distinct Coping Strategy for the Dairy Paradox (2026)

Springer today: A legacy of trust for your research

To publish your best work and reach a broad audience, you need a publisher you can trust. Springer’s long legacy of excellence is what makes it the trusted publisher you know today.

Springer has a broad disciplinary reach, spanning science, technology, medicine, humanities, and social sciences. You’ll find cutting-edge science as well as foundational work, in formats ranging from journals and books to reference works and more, designed to serve the various needs of the research community. With its portfolio of over 2,700 journals and over 220,000 books, Springer publishes the trusted content that serves as the foundation for research and development. And it empowers authors to share impactful research.

Over time, books and articles can do more than record results. They help define fields, connect within and between communities, and support the development of your work and of research beyond your field. Springer supports this long-term value by adapting alongside authors and editors to the evolving landscape of scholarly publishing. Springer’s adaptive, forward-looking approach is reflected in how it responded to two major shifts in scholarly communication over recent decades: digitalisation and open access.

“A benefit for the authors, in the first place, is the reputation of Springer. It’s attractive to have an article in a Springer journal, because Springer is a good publisher, obviously.”     

- Marc de Vries, author of Storybook driven design for enhancing spatial ability in early childhood: a lesson study approach (2026)

Forward-looking innovation: At the forefront of globalisation and digitalisation

The modest Springer publishing house grew alongside the internationalisation of science. Knowledge advances fast when researchers engage across borders, and Springer was there to support the global circulation of ideas, which required trusted editorial processes in an international scale. Research needed more than just wider distribution, but also meaningful connections.

Digitalisation expanded this process of connecting and delivering research. Springer’s early embrace of digital publishing was a natural extension of its legacy of excellence and rigour, combined with an innovative spirit.

Digital publishing makes it easier for your work to be discovered, accessed, and connected to related research. Springer’s early investment in digital infrastructure made more than a century and a half of scholarly publications available to study and explore. This digitalisation underscored Springer’s commitment to supporting researchers as they navigate an increasingly digital, networked environment.

“At the Springer publication European Journal for Philosophy of Science, we try to give space for non-mainstream voices. We also try to make the refereeing process as fair and transparent as possible, especially to younger researchers who may be less acquainted with what happens behind the scenes.”

- Federica Russo, Co-Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal for Philosophy of Science

Open access: Making research more accessible than ever

Springer has always played a significant role in shaping new publishing models, particularly open access. The same adaptive mindset that has always guided Springer also shaped its proactive and leading response to the advent of open access.

As expectations around access, funding, and transparency in research began to change, Springer expanded new publishing models that supported wider dissemination while maintaining established editorial standards. The development of open access journals and books reflected an understanding that research communities differ in their needs, and that sustainable routes to openness require flexibility rather than uniform solutions.

Open access is another chapter in Springer’s robust legacy, which continues its longstanding mission to support research communities navigate the publishing and research landscapes, and ensure research can reach the audiences who can make it meaningful by building on it or putting it into practice.

Research now moves faster, crosses disciplines more readily, and is expected to address increasingly complex global challenges. Springer evolves alongside it, always helping experts publish their work and helping others find it. While tools, platforms, and publishing models may change, Springer’s underlying commitment remains the same as it was in 1842: to support research communities in turning knowledge into insight and action.

Explore the benefits of publishing your next journal article or book with Springer. Get practical tools, expert insights, and tailored resources to help you navigate the process with confidence and clarity.

Related Content

• Starting your career? Here’s how Springer can help you publish open access · The story of Springer’s first open access book
• The story of Springer’s first open access book