Publishing Ecosystem Research Articles

A situated analysis of research publication evaluation in Latin countries based on a pluriversal approach

The global knowledge ecosystem is affected by ethnocentrism and witnesses Western monopolies of knowledge that have built hegemonic structures and narratives, especially in scientific and academic publishing. For the design field, the paper proposes a transition from processes of power and control over knowledge to processes of distributed knowledge leadership among the stakeholders of the publishing system (journals, conferences, scientific associations and societies, academic networks). It analyses the publishing ecosystem of Latin American countries as a case study representative of Global South knowledge that is ‘decentring’ scientific design publishing. By problematizing pluriversity, it proposes a practical frameworkon international collaboration, informed evaluation, and distributed processes to promote equity and accessibility. The 8th International Forum of Design as a Process serves as a testbed, showcasing community-led knowledge experimentation targeting the Global South countries. The case study highlights the potential to re-evaluate established structures for more pluriversal design knowledge.

Black Women in Medical Education Publishing: Bibliometric and Testimonio Accounts Using Intersectionality Methodology.

Black women in academic medicine experience racial and gender discrimination, all while being tasked with improving a flawed system. Representation of Black women in medicine remains low, yet they bear the burden of fostering diversity and mentoring trainees, exacerbating their minority tax and emotional labor, and negatively impacting career progression. To complement qualitative accounts of Black women authors in the medical education literature with a quantitative account of their representation. We used statistical modeling to estimate the representation of Black women authors in medical education publishing as compared to other groups. An intersectional methodology employing bibliometric analysis and testimonio reflection. US-based authors of journal articles published in medical education journals between 2000 and 2020. Author race was determined using a probability-based algorithm incorporating US Census data, and author gender was ascribed using Social Security Administration records. We conducted two negative binomial generalized linear models by first and last author publications. Metadata for each article was retrieved from Web of Science and PubMed to include author names, country of institutional affiliation, and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Results were contextualized via the "testimonio" account of a Black woman author. Of 21,945 unique authors, Black women (and other racially minoritized groups) published far fewer first and last author papers than white women and men. In addition, major MeSH terms used by Black women authors reveal little overlap with highly ranked medical education topics. The testimonio further narrated struggles with belonging and racial identity. This study revealed that Black women are underrepresented in medical education publishing. We believe that dismantling oppressive structures in the publishing ecosystem and the field is imperative for achieving equity. Additionally, further experiential accounts are needed to contextualize this quantitative account and understand underrepresentation in medical education publishing.

Challenges in building scholarly knowledge graphs for research assessment in open science

Abstract Open science has revolutionized scholarly communication and research assessment by introducing research data and software as first-class citizens. Scholarly knowledge graphs (SKGs) are expected to play a crucial role in generating research assessment indicators being able to aggregate bibliographic metadata records and semantic relationships describing all research products and their links (e.g., citations, affiliations, funding). However, the rapid advance of open science has led to publication workflows that do not adequately support and guarantee the authenticity of products and metadata quality required for research assessment. Additionally, the heterogeneity of research communities and the multitude of data sources and exchange formats complicate the provision of consistent and stable SKGs. This work builds upon the experience gained from pioneering and addressing these challenges in the OpenAIRE Graph SKG. The aim is twofold and broader. First, we identify obstacles to the creation of SKGs for research assessment caused by the state-of-the-art publishing workflows for publications, software, and data. Second, we describe repurposing SKGs as tools to monitor such workflows to identify and heal their shortcomings, taking advantage of tools, techniques, and practices that support the actors involved, namely research communities, scientists, organizations, data source providers, and SKG providers, to improve the Open Science scholarly publishing ecosystem.

ADNDT's enduring distinct role in the scientific publishing ecosystem

ADNDT's enduring distinct role in the scientific publishing ecosystem

생성형 인공지능 기술이 출판 콘텐츠 생산 과정 변화에 미치는 영향 연구

Artificial intelligence technology is being applied to the publishing industry in various forms. This study focused on content among the C-P-N-D perspectives that use artificial intelligence technology that is affecting the publishing ecosystem as a media ecosystem analysis framework. As a result of the study, visual intelligence technology was being applied to image generation areas such as book covers and book design generation of publications. Language intelligence technology was being applied to content planning, automation content generation, content editing and revision areas in connection with text generation. The expert system used artificial intelligence technology in the publishing process to optimize various areas such as content planning, creation, editing, and marketing, and bring about changes in the efficiency of work and reduction of production cost. This study discussed changes and major issues, which were grafted in the publishing area and artificial intelligence technology focused on content (C). Understanding the environmental changes and applications that artificial intelligence technology will bring to the publishing industry can strengthen the understanding and direction of the publishing industry.

How are global university rankings adjusted for erroneous science, fraud and misconduct? Posterior reduction or adjustment in rankings in response to retractions and invalidation of scientific findings

Global university rankings (GURs), such as the Times Higher Education World University Ranking (THE WUR), Quacquarelli Symonds University World Rankings (QS UWR) and the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) are positively incremental, that is, they do not reflect any level of penalisation in response to unscholarly activity, especially in the field of research and publication. In the light of an increasing trend in fraud, such as the use of paper mills and authorship-for-sale schemes, this letter proposes that GURs need to be reduced, or penalised, in response to cases of misconduct and instances of retractions. In the absence of a transparent corrective system, GURs will be further criticised for being unfair, biased and not reflective of an evolving and unstable academic publishing ecosystem.

Is AI my co-author? The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific publishing

ABSTRACT The recent emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) and other forms of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has led people to wonder whether they could act as an author on a scientific paper. This paper argues that AI systems should not be included on the author by-line. We agree with current commentators that LLMs are incapable of taking responsibility for their work and thus do not meet current authorship guidelines. We identify other problems with responsibility and authorship. In addition, the problems go deeper as AI tools also do not write in a meaningful sense nor do they have persistent identities. From a broader publication ethics perspective, adopting AI authorship would have detrimental effects on an already overly competitive and stressed publishing ecosystem. Deterrence is possible as backward-looking tools will likely be able to identify past AI usage. Finally, we question the value of using AI to produce more research simply for publication’s sake.

A publishing infrastructure for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted academic authoring.

Investigate the use of advanced natural language processing models to streamline the time-consuming process of writing and revising scholarly manuscripts. For this purpose, we integrate large language models into the Manubot publishing ecosystem to suggest revisions for scholarly texts. Our AI-based revision workflow employs a prompt generator that incorporates manuscript metadata into templates, generating section-specific instructions for the language model. The model then generates revised versions of each paragraph for human authors to review. We evaluated this methodology through 5 case studies of existing manuscripts, including the revision of this manuscript. Our results indicate that these models, despite some limitations, can grasp complex academic concepts and enhance text quality. All changes to the manuscript are tracked using a version control system, ensuring transparency in distinguishing between human- and machine-generated text. Given the significant time researchers invest in crafting prose, incorporating large language models into the scholarly writing process can significantly improve the type of knowledge work performed by academics. Our approach also enables scholars to concentrate on critical aspects of their work, such as the novelty of their ideas, while automating tedious tasks like adhering to specific writing styles. Although the use of AI-assisted tools in scientific authoring is controversial, our approach, which focuses on revising human-written text and provides change-tracking transparency, can mitigate concerns regarding AI's role in scientific writing.

Article-Processing Fees and Subsidies: The Colonial Entanglement of Knowledge Production in South Africa—The Case of Gender-Based Violence Research

In this article, we studied the contribution of the current South African publishing ecosystem to the hierarchisation, elitism and monopolisation of knowledge production in social-justice studies, taking as an example the research area of gender-based violence (GBV). We examined the Sabinet database of articles published in South African journals on GBV between 2018 and 2022, and reviewed the pre- and post-production value chain related to the publication of these articles (especially the article page-fee structure and the governmental subsidy system). In addition, we couched this discussion in feminist decolonial critique. We conclude that the current publishing ecosystem—with the more or less active involvement and/or support of the government, journals and academics—greatly limits the diversity of voices able to contribute to the production of knowledge on GBV. This ecosystem hampers, minimises or even excludes the first-hand knowledge and experiences of those located outside of academic institutions (particularly, local researchers unaffiliated with South African universities, grassroot activists and members of non-governmental organisations). It conversely renders academics and the tertiary educational institutions which employ them as the only actors capable of benefiting financially from or contributing to the knowledge-production chain and, in return, feeding it. This cycle seems to propel the creation of an echo chamber of views, perspectives and opinions with academics and their tertiary educational institutions de facto acting as the only knowledge producers in the country. We propose that the solution to such an unjust situation is a radical decolonisation of the deeply epi-colonial South African publishing ecosystem.

Viewpoint: the evolving landscape of peer review

PurposeThe purpose of this viewpoint is to spotlight the role of reviewers within the collaborative triad of academic publishing. It argues that the significance of reviewers is often disregarded, leading to a gap in our understanding of the peer review process. This perspective emphasizes reviewers as unsung heroes in the publishing ecosystem, providing intentional and thought-provoking insights into the less-discussed yet impactful developments in the evolving peer review landscape.Design/methodology/approachLeveraging the author’s distinguished background as a recipient of the Journal of Service Marketing Outstanding Reviewer Award, this paper offers a personal reflection and synthesised viewpoints on the peer review process. Serving as a representative voice for reviewers, it provides insightful perspectives from the vantage point of a peer reviewer, diverging from conventional editorials and commentaries authored by editors.FindingsAcknowledging the shrinking reviewer pool, this viewpoint suggests a mandatory “review for review” system alongside incentives like editorial positions, while considering financial rewards for reviewers. The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in review prompts ethical concerns but offers solutions for handling diverse submissions and dealing with “Reviewer 2.” While embracing open review for its transparency, potential pitfalls surrounding article confidence and copyright require attention. Ultimately, this viewpoint advocates for a collaborative approach, valuing reviewers, exploring innovative solutions, navigating ethical dilemmas in the technological age and implementing transparent practices responsibly for the betterment of scholarly discourse.Originality/valueThis viewpoint highlights the invaluable contributions of reviewers, enriching the scholarly community and promoting intellectual growth.

Keeping tabs on the lifeblood of the publishing ecosystem

Keeping tabs on the lifeblood of the publishing ecosystem

From Research to Publication: Understanding the Publishing Landscape in Architectural Studies

ABSTRACT Navigating the academic publishing ecosystem is a crucial skill that requires preparation and experience. Publishing for tenure is a common practice in many institutions, yet as with many disciplines, engaging in the academic publishing world is not often taught in graduate architecture school. By accessing and examining the procedures and expectations needed to successfully publish, this article enables tenure seeking faculty to identify and address the challenges and questions facing academic publication. Topics include understanding open access journals, predatory journals, the role of the editorial board, and other important scholarly communication topics.

Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Journal Publishing

The aim of this opinion piece is to examine the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in relation to academic journal publishing. The work discusses approaches to AI with particular attention to recent developments with generative AI. Consensus is noted around eight normative themes for principles for responsible AI and their associated risks. A framework from Shneiderman (2022) for human-centered AI is employed to consider journal publishing practices that can address the principles of responsible AI at different levels. The resultant AI principled governance matrix (AI-PGM) for journal publishing shows how countermeasures for risks can be employed at the levels of the author-researcher team, the organization, the industry, and by government regulation. The AI-PGM allows a structured approach to responsible AI and may be modified as developments with AI unfold. It shows how the whole publishing ecosystem should be considered when looking at the responsible use of AI—not just journal policy itself.

Digital Transformation of Academic Publishing: A Call for the Decentralization and Democratization of Academic Journals

This opinion paper aims, following a brief overview of the state of affairs of the academic publishing ecosystem, to shed light on a market failure that stems from commercial publishers harnessing that ecosystem for exorbitant profits at the expense of the scientific enterprise and society at large. The paper examines how emerging technologies can help the scientific community grapple with this predicament and reestablish an institutional logic that favors scholarship and world benefit over the economic interests of publishers. Building on Web3 technologies, the paper suggests a two-pronged strategy that relies primarily on blockchain and AI technologies to help restore a fair and equitable power balance and improve the publishing experience. This proposed course of action presents an opportunity to tackle the grand challenge faced by the academic publishing ecosystem while simultaneously asserting the IS community’s proclaimed role as stewards of the digital revolution. It is time for us to harness digital technology to transform our journals from monolithic monarchies to agile democracies.

Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science.

The reality that volumes of published biomedical research are not reproducible is an increasingly recognized problem. Spurious results reduce trustworthiness of reported science, increasing research waste. While science should be self-correcting from a philosophical perspective, that in insolation yields no information on efforts required to nullify suspect findings or factors shaping how quickly science may be corrected. There is also a paucity of information on how perverse incentives in the publishing ecosystem favouring novel positive findings over null results shape the ability of published science to self-correct. Knowledge of factors shaping self-correction of science remain obscure, limiting our ability to mitigate harms. This modelling study introduces a simple model to capture dynamics of the publication ecosystem, exploring factors influencing research waste, trustworthiness, corrective effort and time to correction. Results from this work indicate that research waste and corrective effort are highly dependent on field-specific false positive rates and time delays to corrective results to spurious findings are propagated. The model also suggests conditions under which biomedical science is self-correcting and those under which publication of correctives alone cannot stem propagation of untrustworthy results. Finally, this work models a variety of potential mitigation strategies, including researcher- and publisher-driven interventions.

Study on Copyright recognition and improvement measures related to generative AI creations in the publishing ecosystem

Study on Copyright recognition and improvement measures related to generative AI creations in the publishing ecosystem

APCs in a diamond wonderland

The economy of open access (OA) publishing has been a topic of intensive research over the last two decades. Dichotomies between the so-called 'green' and 'gold' models, or between fee-based and non-fee-based gold models, the latter known as the diamond model, have been addressed from diverse perspectives. However, some critical insights that would enable a thorough understanding of publishers’ and editors’ decision-making and provide a foundation for developing future evidence-based public policies are still missing.In recent years, more importance has been given to the diamond OA model, and the European research area has recognized its potential to bring change and possibly transform the scholarly publishing landscape. The 2021 EC-funded OA Diamond Journals Study (Bosman et al., 2021) reveals that while Europe is rich in OA Diamond journals, they are far from all being included in the DOAJ, nor are they equally distributed across scholarly disciplines and European regions. The study indicates the dominance of large commercial and APC-based publishers in Western Europe contrasted to the prevalence of smaller, diamond OA publishers in Central and Eastern Europe. Yet, subsequent research by Laakso and Multas (2023) shows that such a distribution across European regions could oversimplify a more diverse landscape. Their bibliometric-based analysis indicates that within regions, countries can vary significantly in their publishing ecosystems, based on several factors: the type (and size) of dominant publishers, the availability of country-level public funding mechanisms for scholarly journals, and the availability of common publishing infrastructures. There are examples of countries from different European regions that appear to be successful in building a thriving and sustainable national diamond publishing ecosystem. However, some publishers adopt an APC-based business model even in such predominantly diamond ecosystems. Our study will be twofold: a comparative investigation will establish the share of APC journals in several dominantly diamond countries: Croatia, Finland, France, Norway, Serbia, and Spain. Although limited in geographical scope, the intended sample will strive for complete coverage of OA journals: authors from each country will provide comprehensive national addenda to DOAJ lists. The publicly available information on the websites of all identified OA journals issued by the publishers located in the countries mentioned above will be inspected for evidence of APC schemes (any fees or charges required of authors or their institutions for submitting or publishing a paper in a journal). The study will address the following research questions: 1. What is the share of journals charging APCs at the time of research (among all OA journals in the country, and especially among journals receiving public subsidies, if there are such subsidies available)?; 2. What is the range, median and mode of APC costs?; 3. Is the existence of APCs and their cost related to the type of a journal publisher or owner, the scholarly discipline, or the fact that the journal is indexed inestablished international indices and databases?The insight into the incidence of APC-based journals and the context in which they are introduced will be complemented with a qualitative analysis of APC descriptions. This is expected to reveal some of the reasons for their introduction and possibly show that smaller publishers could resort to some local and nonstandard mechanisms. It will answer additional research questions: 4. Are there any specificities of the APC mechanisms among the analysed journals (waivers, discounts, membership fees, etc.)?, and 5. How transparent are journals about their APCs? (What are the terms used for APCs in different languages? Are they listed in their DOAJ records? Is it explained what they are charged for and how the funds are used?).The results are expected to deepen the existing knowledge about the diversity and sustainability of OA ecosystems.

Diamond Open Access landscape in Croatia - preliminary DIAMAS survey results

Open access scholarly publishing is a diverse realm, involving numerous stakeholders and various organisational models (Fuchs and Sandoval, 2013). However, one facet that has often been overlooked is the publishing activities carried out by scientific institutions themselves. Given that these institutional initiatives play a vital role in preserving the social, linguistic, cultural, and epistemological diversity within the European research landscape, the primary objective of the Horizon Europe project, "Developing Institutional Open Access Publishing Models to Advance Scholarly Communication" (DIAMAS), is to establish a unified European standard for the currently fragmented institutional publishing landscape (Mounier and Aspaas, 2023). This initiative aims to enhance efficiency, quality, and the overall practices of publishing activities and services across the European Research Area (ERA).The DIAMAS survey targeted 252 Institutional Publishing Service Providers (IPSPs) in Croatia and achieved a robust response rate of 77%. Half of Croatian IPSPs are affiliated with universities, faculties, and learned societies. IPSPs in Croatia primarily handle academic journals, academic books, and conference outputs. However, their services extend to encompass other research outputs, media, digital products, and non-academic content. On average, a Croatian IPSP publishes 1-5 scholarly journals, 11-100 scholarly articles, 1-10 academic books, and 1-20 conference proceedings annually. Multilingualism is a notable feature among IPSPs, with 82% practising multilingual publishing to engage wider audiences. Despite linguistic complexities and the need for human translators, the scientific community's commitment to extensive outreach remains evident.
 Croatia's Commitment to Open AccessIn Croatia, the academic publishing landscape is significantly shaped by universities and learned societies, staunch proponents of the non-profit model and early adopters of open access (OA). This dedication, supported by a national HRČAK platform hosting over 400 active OA journals and government subsidies, underscores Croatia's unwavering commitment to unencumbered knowledge sharing. The country's preference for not resorting to "article processing charges" reflects strong support for the diamond OA model.While a comprehensive national OA/OS policy is still in progress in Croatia, support for OA exists through different national laws and strategies. The government mandates OA and inclusion in the HRČAK portal for subsidised journals and OA repositories for graduation and doctoral theses. 64% of respondents reference some form of OA/OS policy, indicating the integration of OA principles into scholarly publishing practices over decades.
 Funding, Income Streams and SustainabilityGovernment subsidies from the Ministry of Science and Education and other ministries are the primary sources for scholarly journals, with the average IPSP budget below €10,000. Voluntary efforts significantly influence Croatia's IPSP landscape, with 53% of respondents relying on unpaid staff, accentuating the country's unique and complex scholarly publishing ecosystem. The importance of voluntary work is underscored by IPSPs' reliance on in-kind support from parent organisations in terms of facilities, IT services, and staff salaries.Challenges to financial sustainability include the lack of funding continuity, irregularity, delays, and insufficient funding. Furthermore, changes in government funding eligibility without notice and price increases in printing and copy-editing pose challenges. Suggestions to address these issues include enhancing financial literacy, collaboration, and promotion of scholarly publishing.Editorial Quality, Technical Services, Visibility, Metrics and Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging (EDIB)IPSPs actively participate in editorial management, with 71% involved in editorial board recruitment and other aspects. Regarding peer review, a double-anonymous peer review is preferred by 44%, followed by a single-anonymous peer review (15%). Some IPSPs have begun implementing open identities and open review reports. IPSPs predominantly offer editorial services voluntarily or as in-kind contributions. In contrast, production and IT services are mostly outsourced. Technical challenges arise from financial constraints, lack of human resources, expertise, and technical limitations.Croatian IPSPs aspire to have their journals indexed in WoSCC and Scopus databases. Other indexes such as DOAJ, DOAB, ERIH PLUS, PubMed, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Google Books, and OAPEN are also considered. While 44% of IPSPs are content with their current indexing status, some face challenges in meeting technical participation criteria.IPSPs utilise metrics such as submissions, acceptance and publication dates, visits, views, downloads, and Journal Impact Factor. EDIB measures are prioritised, with the main measures being a code of conduct and non-discrimination policies. Accessibility standards are often unknown, and 64% of IPSPs do not have accessibility policies. Gender Equality Plans (GEP) are implemented by 25% of IPSPs.In summary, the DIAMAS survey illuminates the intricate landscape of scholarly publishing in Croatia, revealing its commitment to diamond open access while highlighting challenges and opportunities for improvement.

The many faces of sustaining Open Access publishing

Watch VIDEO. The concept of sustainability has often been used in both research on OA publishing systems, and as a desirable design principle in thinking of and building any future OA publishing business model. At the same time, the term has gained considerable attention across other domains, mainly in relation to environmental sustainability or sustainable development (especially with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs), which makes it even more important to draw a clear demarcation line between such uses. Despite its social importance, the financial and resource-related sustainability of OA publishing hasn’t been clearly defined and largely differs across countries. The presentation is aimed at formulating questions that could lead us to gaining transparency and reaching a consensus on the way the term ‘sustainability’ will be used henceforth, especially in the theoretical and practical research of funding OA publishing (diamond OA in particular). It outlines some of the results of discussing this issue within the DIAMAS project with European OA publishers, learned societies, advocacy organisations and researchers. One of the first obstacles in reaching a better understanding is crossing the linguistic barrier and acknowledging that the term has not always gained equal traction across countries and when used, it has multiple connotations in all languages. The span of meanings could range from simply being durable and existing in the long term, or to enduring without having negative implications for other aspects of the ecosystem, such as depleting resources others might need or affecting their survival. It is also important to acknowledge the fact that stakeholders involved in OA publishing vary and therefore perceive sustainability (and the ways to achieve it) in different ways: we often witness strategies such as more successful fundraising, efficient use of resources or shared resources, or cost reduction measures. While sustainability goals may range from cost recovery only, to enabling reinvestment or guarding against ‘hard times’, or sustaining revenues ‘at the same level’ - even if that includes high profit margins or companies with shareholders. The building blocks of the scope and meaning of ‘sustainability’ have evolved from answering questions on the object or unit of sustainability (What is sustainable? Is it a journal, a publisher, a business model or a wider publishing ecosystem?) as well as on the sustainability actors or players (Who is a sustainer? Who holds responsibility for sustainability? Which stakeholder/group of stakeholders?). A conclusion that emerged suggests that a univocal and obvious definition of ‘sustainability’ is unlikely to be achieved as it is dependent on multiple perspectives of actors in the ecosystem and is necessarily involving dynamics and transformative practices. In short, this presentation hopes to give the audience a deeper understanding of what sustaining OA publishing means in different contexts. It will encourage listeners to question their perceptions of sustainability before possibly coming to new conclusions to address the topic more thoroughly in their local contexts, and to consider how we collectively take steps towards more unified terms and definitions.

Prospects of digital scientific publishing on blockchain: The concept of DAP

Background: Traditional publishing models, open access and major publishers, cannot adequately address the key challenges of academic publishing today: Speed of peer review, recognition of work and incentive mechanisms, transparency and thrust of the system. Methods: To address these challenges, the authors propose Decentralised Academic Publishing (DAP), which is based on the novel HashNET DLT platform. The DAP introduces several innovative components: tracking the activities of all participants in the peer review process using blockchain and smart contracts, the introduction of the Scholarly Wallet for holding reputation (non-fungible) and reward (fungible) tokens, the use of the Scholarly Wallet as the main interface to the DAP platform, the Virtual Editor that enables automatic discovery of the research area and invitation of reviewers, and finally the global database of evaluated reviewers, ranked by the quality of their previous work. Results: The DAP platform is in the development phase, with the design and functionalities of all modules defined. An exception is the central component of DAP, the Scholarly Wallet module, whose first prototype has already been created, tested and published. The implementation of DAP is planned for the next phase of the HorizonEurope TruBlo project and other research initiatives. The DAP platform will be connected to the publishing ecosystem: 1) as a backend system (distributed blockchain database) for existing publishing platforms and 2) as a standalone publishing platform with its own API interface. Conclusions: The authors believe that DAP has the potential to significantly improve academic peer review and knowledge dissemination. It is expected that the use of blockchain technology, the fast HashNET consensus platform and tokens for reward (fungible) and reputation/ranking (non-fungible) will lead to a more efficient and transparent way of rewarding all participants in the peer review process and ultimately advance scientific research.