Reaching OA’s potential

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SDGs case study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publisher mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A pattern emerges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Authors:

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

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

How to track and demonstrate research alignment with S

During our 2023 North American User Day, Alexandra Hiniker (Director of the Sustainability Initiative) and Jason Glenn (Program Director for Research Information Management Services) presented on CMU’s Sustainability Initiative and how they have been utilising Elements to help track their researchers’ engagement with and outputs related to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, a set of global objectives agreed to by all countries the United Nations as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

We’ve really incorporated
the labelling practices of the Sustainable Development Goals into our overall adoption and strategy of Elements.”

This case study covers:

• How CMU became the first university in the world to publish a Voluntary University Review
• How Symplectic Elements can be used to label and track SDGs
• Approaches to encourage researchers in labelling their outputs by SDG Goal
• How Scholars@CMU offers a searchable, public directory that allows users to browse through researchers and publications by SDG Goal
• How administrators can use reporting in Symplectic Elements to analyse and demonstrate how research efforts across the university align with different Goals

Download whitepaper

Carnegie Mellon University: Tracking sustainable development goals using Symplectic Elements

The post Carnegie Mellon University: Tracking sustainable development goals using Symplectic Elements appeared first on Digital Science.

At this critical juncture, midway to 2030, the evidence makes clear that incremental and fragmented change is insufficient to achieve all 17 SDGs in the remaining seven years, or even by 2050.”

Antonio Guterres

UN Secretary General, 2023

A short commentary

2023 marks the halfway point between 2015 (the entry point of the Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), and 2030 (the end point of the SDGs).^[1] As it stands currently, the world is off track to achieving the SDGs^[2] and action is necessary to accelerate their implementation.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals^[3] remain an increasingly important platform, and are the best roadmap that we have currently for achieving global sustainable development. To effectively realise what is known as the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, there needs to be evidence of “a shared sense of common purpose”. However, progress on achieving the 2030 Agenda has been severely disrupted due to multiple world crises. Thus a joint effort utilising multi-stakeholder partnerships to help to achieve the SDGs is paramount at this halfway point.

Research looking at the fragmentation of SDGs reveals some interesting insights from a number of perspectives. For example, a recent study has found that at this halfway point, silos are strengthening around the 17 SDGs and their three dimensions (social, economic and environmental) producing a fragmented state.^[4] The study, carried out by researchers at the University of Utrecht, looked at the network of international organisations assessing how they had either come together or diverged since the SDGs came into effect in 2016. The research found that overall fragmentation had not decreased in the network since SDG implementation, but did find that international organisations with a focus on the three dimensions of SDG policies displayed different tendencies. For example, social international organisations are least likely to cooperate with others outside the social dimension and are hence most siloed. Environmental international organisations, conversely, are most inclined to cooperate with others outside their dimension, however, the study found that this has diminished over time.^[5]

In a report by the United Nations Development Programme, according to the IMF, global financial fragmentation caused by geopolitical tensions has increased economic fragility.  This has resulted in rising socio-economic inequality contributing to reduced global trade and social tensions in both developed and developing countries, threatening progress on the SDGs.^[6]

The governance in global sustainability is important for bringing together the 191 SDG member states and international organisations that are tasked with working towards realising the Goals. Currently though, this governance is notable in its distinct clusters of international organisations working in a siloed fashion thereby leading to a fragmented system. SDG17 – Partnership for the Goals – emphasises the global partnership that is necessary for achieving all of the SDGs and strengthening inter-organisational coordination and cooperation and is recognised as an important challenge in global sustainability governance. However, geopolitical tensions have made it more difficult to achieve this and cooperation and coordination are necessary now more than ever to speed up the implementation of the SDGs.

Advancing and achieving the SDGs in a world with increased complexity and fragmentation is not an easy task. A complex network of interconnections exist across the SDGs and show how actions directed towards one SDG can influence others. For example, food production (SDGs 1 and 2) is increasingly threatened by air pollution (SDG13), which affects soil quality (SDG15) and crop yields (SDG2). The 2023 Global Sustainability report highlights that an interconnected and systemic approach will be key and shows new evidence that understanding the interconnections between individual goals (as we see above) will be essential. The intertwinings and interdependencies that exist should mean that they cannot fragment. However, this is not the case according to research highlighted above, nor is it for research looking at fragmentation as an enduring feature of the SDGs and the global landscape.

The viewpoint we have taken for this short piece emphasises geopolitical tensions and international organisations/governance as two themes by which to briefly take a look at the narrative in this area. One of the central premises is that the SDGs by their very nature are interwoven and connected and so there should be no room for fragmentation, but what we see is that individually and collectively (by their three dimensions) SDG fragmentation has emerged in a number of different ways.

References

^[1] https://www.un.org/en/conferences/SDGSummit2023

^[2] https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2023/09

^[3] https://sdgs.un.org/goals

^[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378022001054#b0610

^[5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378022001054

^[6] https://www.undp.org/publications/fragmentation-integration-embedding-social-issues-sustainable-finance-0#:~:text=The%20paper%20From%20Fragmentation%20to,of%20a%20market%2Dbased%20economy

The post In the spotlight: Have the SDGs failed to reduce fragmentation in global sustainability? appeared first on Digital Science.

If you’re new to SDGs and want to get a quick idea of how to look at them through a number of different lenses, this is the introduction for you.

Quick links

What are the SDGs and FoRs?

Briony:

The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, came into effect in January 2016. The 17 SDGs, are a call for action by all countries – developed and developing – in a global partnership. They recognise that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth – all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests. And importantly, leaving no one behind. Every year, the UN Secretary General presents an annual SDG Progress Report, which is developed in cooperation with the UN System, and based on the global indicator framework, data produced by national statistical systems and information collected at the regional level. 

The Fields of Research (FoR) classification is a component of the 2020 Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC) system, developed in 2008 and updated in 2020. It categorises all research and development (R&D) activity using a single system. The system is hierarchical, with major fields subdivided into minor fields (FoRs).

SDGs and research impact assessment

Juergen:

My overarching motivation is that I like to unearth interesting details about research, and how it connects to other things, and in particular those details and connections that aren’t necessarily obvious at first glance.

What does this mean in practice? Well, I usually like to start by thinking in two dimensions. For the first dimension we usually look at the different fields of research (FoR), but when we’re doing research assessment, having a simple uni-dimensional view like this can be somewhat limiting. So I like to open up a matrix / heatmap and spread whatever we look at into different corners to see what picture emerges, to see if hotspots emerge. Effectively doing a breadth-first rather than a depth-first search is a 2-dimensional data visualisation technique that represents the magnitude of individual values within a dataset as a colour.

At any point in time there is always a focus on a particular discipline or disciplines — nowadays an obvious one is computer science and AI — but there may be other characteristics to the particular pieces of research in that area. So by adding a second layer, a second dimension, you get a heatmap and can dive deeper into those areas that look interesting when seen through that perspective.

As an example, consider the field of engineering (FoR40). Engineering is very broad, so how do you narrow it down? You could start by choosing a particular branch of engineering, but in doing so you might miss some really interesting things. But if you look at it from the point of view of societal impact with SDGs, then you get a different, more interesting picture. We could, for example, then say: “Oh, we’ve looked at automotive engineering, what will it do in the future? Is e-fuels a thing? Is there already research? When did it start? Did it kick off in 2016 with the launch of the SDGs?” 

So SDGs are, for me, the second axis to open up another dimension in order to do a deep dive into existing research and to highlight it from a new angle. 

Briony:

To add my perspective, I would describe it as follows: using whichever SDGs are relevant, we can look at the associated research in a much more nuanced and detailed fashion. 

To me it is important we look at the sustainability side of research in ways that others might not.

For example, researchers might not look at the Global North – Global South divide — this is the high- and middle-income countries vs the low- and lower-middle-income countries, respectively — from the perspective of, let’s say, climate change, and putting the two together, like we did in our recent piece on Zoonotic diseases. So, whilst we’re not doing a meta analysis, what we do helps to see things from what you might call a meta viewpoint; it helps us to narrow it down in one axis whilst keeping it broad in others.

Finding the needle in the haystack

Briony:

It’s a way of taking what would otherwise be a really big, intractable topic and giving us a particular angle to look at it from, or a particular filter or lens to look at it through.

It also enables us to showcase how much research has been labelled as being associated with one or more SDGs. The fact that we can identify and tag the research of academics helps showcase how much is being carried out that connects with the sustainability agenda. It’s a viewpoint we have because of the SDG coverage in Dimensions. Other databases don’t attach SDG labels to funding and policy documents, but Dimensions does. It enables this meta viewpoint which is really exciting, and allows us to look at the data in a more nuanced and thorough manner.

Juergen:

Yes, exactly! One of the things that we have done, particularly with our early SDG work, is to look at the potential citation advantage of SDG papers that underpin impact case studies, to determine whether there is an advantage or not. We also looked into how SDGs feature in a UK REF submission, as well as SDGs and impact case studies, using the narrative of a REF impact case study, classifying it externally via our classifier in Dimensions, and then carrying out different analyses. 

So it’s all about opening up new avenues, and looking at research from different angles. 

But we still have to be careful with SDGs. They are not as broadly available as FoRs are — FoRs capture 80% of publications in Dimensions. With SDGs that goes down to about 20-25%, because not all research is published in the context of an SDG. So in a way the SDGs are a good classification system, but not as broad as sometimes people think they might be. From a policy stakeholder point of view, and from a funder point of view it is a hot topic. So we like to look at any analysis that we have on FoRs and, where appropriate, map SDGs onto these.

The benefits for decision makers

Juergen: 

The flexibility of the classification systems in Dimensions and in this case, the SDG classification system, means we could in theory produce an infinite number of reports of course. However, I always try to focus on uncovering results that will be interesting and useful from a decision-making perspective.

In that sense, I’m particularly proud of the ways in which we link SDGs to Dimensions’ dashboards — for example, it took quite a lot of effort to include SDG-type functionality in the P&I dashboard.

It’s also worth pointing out that, unlike in many products and services where the dashboards that are provided only give you a visualisation of something without the ability to drill into the data behind it, with ours you can actually get right to the data. And however you slice and dice or filter your graphs, you can download the data for whatever is in that particular graph that you’re interested in. 

So that’s an important difference, and we’ve had feedback from our development partners that it’s really well received.

Briony:

I’d echo that, and add that we are also driven and inspired by the conversations we have with people — whether it be colleagues here at Digital Science or the researchers or research administrators in academia and industry. For example, I get approached by colleagues wanting to know more about the topic. Digital Science is full of curious and interesting people, and I love that!

Conversations like this often lead to ideas for an analysis that might be relevant to a particular sector or industry, and if we can align these with our internal priorities, and find a good narrative then that’s even better. But even with this approach, for me the subject matter is as important as the underpinning motivation for the reports. It does not seem advantageous to just put an analysis on our website for the sake of it — there has to be a clear rationale for what we’re doing that ties the work to sustainable development goals or some broader related global challenge — and if that’s not there we will park it and focus on something else.

What lies ahead?

Briony:

Our early work was very UK-centric — related to the REF — but our recent reports, blogs and conference contributions have been much more globally relevant. I see this continuing; we’re now in a rather unique position (given the Dimensions data) to look at the global trends and impact of research. Through our work with the wider research community, we are keen to ensure this impact analysis is as available and accessible as possible, for instance through the dashboards Juergen mentioned.

Juergen:

Yes, as Briony says, in addition to the dashboards our initial SDG reports have already led to a number of notable publications with a global focus – most recently we presented jointly with the Prince Sultan University and the Times Higher Education an SDG analysis on all aspects on research in the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in the Developed and Developing World – with a particular focus on the Global South, which we have listed in the following section.

Our key findings

Below is a selection of our recent works covering SDGs, from their appearance in UK academic research assessments, to revealing disparities in efforts to combat the spread of zoonotic diseases amid climate change.

• Contextualizing Sustainable Development Research
  In the report we ask, if we are to have an impact agenda for research, should it not be one that is informed by the SDGs? And if so, should we not be actively measuring sustainable development as part of research evaluation?
• UK Academic Research Contributions to the SDGs Observed Through National Assessment Submissions
  Higher education institutions have a uniquely important role to play in delivering solutions to the SDGs.
• In search of SDGs in REF Impact Case Studies
  This post focuses on the impact of the UK’s research excellence framework (REF) submissions in relation to the UN SDGs.
• How is UK funding Allocated to Support Sustainability Research?
  Dr Juergen Wastl, Dr Briony Fane and Bo Alroe take a look at the distribution of UKRI grant funding supporting sustainability research.
• When economy meets environment: Sustainable development and the case of wastewater pollution in textile manufacturing
  A new analysis of research on wastewater pollution and textile manufacturing reveals the impact of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
• Zooming in on zoonotic diseases
  An analysis has revealed disparities in the research effort to combat the growing risk of animal-borne diseases amid climate change.
• SDGs: A level playing field?
  A new white paper on the UN SDGs shows more can be done to raise up funding and research recognition for the developing world.
• Vaccine Hesitancy and the importance of Trust
  With trust in research a critical issue, our team takes a detailed look at a key ‘trust marker’ in research publications on vaccine hesitancy.

We are continuing to conduct further analysis, and will update this article with additional links as we publish our new findings. If you’d like to discuss potential collaboration opportunities, or to find out more about our use of Dimensions, we’d love to hear from you — please get in touch ✉

The post A multi-dimensional approach to assessing the impact of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) appeared first on Digital Science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But are developing countries facing an additional challenge, by not being recognized equally for the impact their research is having? Simon Linacre looks at a new white paper that shows more can be done to raise up funding and research recognition for the developing world.

When the UN adopted the SDGs in 2015 to focus attention on the major challenges facing the world, it did so seeking to recognise all 193 signatory countries equally. It has always been apparent that some of the worst problems facing humanity are felt much more keenly in developing countries, however the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was an opportunity to right the wrongs of the past and even out inequalities.

However, there has been a nagging doubt, to paraphrase George Orwell, that ‘all countries are equal, but some countries are more equal than others’. This fear has been realized in a landmark white paper by Times Higher Education (THE),  Prince Sultan University and Digital Science, titled ‘Research in the Context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in the Developed and Developing World: Evidence From the Past 15 Years’ and available on the website of the 2023 Global Sustainable Development Congress where it was released last week. 

The white paper is the most comprehensive of its kind to date and calls for greater equity for developing nations within the global research ecosystem, especially as those countries are impacted most by the issues the SDGs focus on. 

The white paper was commissioned by THE and utilizes data from Dimensions to uncover significant gaps in research funding, collaboration and assessment between developed and developing countries. Lower income countries struggle to gain recognition for their contributions towards the SDGs. The authors wanted to level the playing field with a series of recommendations, including:

• Targeted interventions to support lower-income countries, promote research infrastructure, and provide funding opportunities to bolster their research capacities and collaborations
• Continued use of THE Impact Rankings to help address global inequalities and promote strong SDG partnerships between regions
• Use of comprehensive and (if needed) bespoke metrics that capture the multidimensional aspects of research impact aligned with the SDGs, to provide valuable insights and guide policy-making and funding decisions
• Incentives at local and international levels to accelerate SDG research and research collaboration between high-income and lower-income countries, to help uplift scholars from countries that suffer from structural, historical and contemporary imbalances of power in the global research ecosystem.

When reviewing the report, it is clear from the analysis that there is a substantial gap between higher and lower income nations when it comes to research funding and recognition. Perhaps most importantly, this gap has been closing only slowly over the past 15 years, not quickly as one might hope and expect. 

The authors – Professor Mohammad Nurunnabi (Prince Sultan University), Dr Sanjida Haque (Prince Sultan University), Ms Ann Campbell (Digital Science), Dr Juergen Wastl (Digital Science), Dr Ishan Cader (Times Higher Education) – conclude by seeking to reinforce the urgent calls to action by policymakers, both regionally and globally. They say there is a clear need to reflect the quality and impact of research within less developed regions and implement strategies that not only improve the research ecosystem, but that utilize the global influence of university impact rankings. For everyone’s sake, let’s hope the game can be changed in favor of those who have been at a disadvantage since the first whistle.

The post SDGs: A level playing field? appeared first on Digital Science.

Developing nations need greater visibility, acknowledgement and support for their research into the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), according to the authors of a major analysis of the past 15 years of worldwide research into SDGs.

The analysis – the most comprehensive of its kind to date – has formed the basis of a new White Paper, which calls for equity for developing nations within the world’s research ecosystem, particularly as those nations are often hardest hit by the issues the UN’s Global Goals are aimed at addressing.

Announced at the recent Global Sustainable Development Congress run by the Times Higher Education (THE), the white paper has been co-authored by researchers from Prince Sultan University, data experts from research technology company Digital Science, and THE.

Commissioned by THE, and using data from Dimensions, the white paper – Research in the Context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in the Developed and Developing World: Evidence From the Past 15 Years – reveals significant gaps in research funding, collaboration and assessment between developed and developing countries.

“…with further collaboration from all sides, it is possible to create a more equitable research landscape, one in which research from lower income countries is both valued and acknowledged for its crucial role in addressing global challenges and advancing the SDGs.”

Ann Campbell, white paper co-author, Digital Science

The white paper unveils the unique challenges confronting lower income countries in attaining visibility and acknowledgment for their contributions towards the SDGs. The authors have sought to redress this imbalance through a series of recommendations, including:

• Targeted interventions to support lower-income countries, promote research infrastructure, and provide funding opportunities to bolster their research capacities and collaborations.
• Continued use of THE Impact Rankings to help address global inequalities and promote strong SDG partnerships between regions.
• Use of comprehensive and (if needed) bespoke metrics that capture the multidimensional aspects of research impact aligned with the SDGs, to provide valuable insights and guide policy-making and funding decisions.
• Incentives at local and international levels to accelerate SDG research and research collaboration between high-income and lower-income countries, to help uplift scholars from countries that suffer from structural, historical and contemporary imbalances of power in the global research ecosystem.

Co-author Ann Campbell, Technical Solutions Manager – Dimensions & Altmetric, Digital Science says: “Our analysis shows there is a significant gap between higher and lower income nations in relation to SDG research. We can see evidence of growing SDG research in lower income nations over the past 15 years and indeed rising international collaboration within these regions, however, the playing field is far from level. It is encouraging to see that with further collaboration from all sides, it is possible to create a more equitable research landscape, one in which research from lower income countries is both valued and acknowledged for its crucial role in addressing global challenges and advancing the SDGs.”

Co-author Professor Mohammad Nurunnabi, Director of the Center for Sustainability and Climate, Prince Sultan University says: “The SDGs cannot be achieved without the effective involvement of the higher education sector. Policymakers should come together to provide more guidelines to address the gap of research which could be a catalyst to solve many global issues and challenges. Prince Sultan University is strongly committed to this and hence the white paper series could be an eye opener for policymakers.”

Co-author Dr Ishan Cader, Director of Consultancy, THE says: “At the moment, scholars from developing countries are massively under-represented in the global research discourse on sustainability and they suffer from a lack of visibility and promotion. I believe that universities and governments have a moral and ethical duty to ensure that research from the developing world is promoted and funded.”

Phil Baty, Chief Global Affairs Officer, THE says: “University research is absolutely fundamental to achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals – and that research needs to be highly collaborative, crossing borders and transcending geopolitics. Most importantly, we need to tap into expertise and research leadership right across the world – from the global north and the global south, which is on the front-line of our most pressing threats, like the climate crisis.”

Research in the Context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in the Developed and Developing World: Evidence From the Past 15 Years is available on the website of the 2023 Global Sustainable Development Congress.

White paper authors: Professor Mohammad Nurunnabi (Prince Sultan University), Dr Sanjida Haque (Prince Sultan University), Ms Ann Campbell (Digital Science), Dr Juergen Wastl (Digital Science), Dr Ishan Cader (Times Higher Education).

About Prince Sultan University

Prince Sultan University (PSU) is the first private non-profit institution in Saudi Arabia. The Center for Sustainability and Climate (CSC) of Prince Sultan University is committed to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through effective institutional resources management, innovative teaching and learning, research, national and international partnerships, continuous studies, and outreach.

The mission is to support Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 and the PSU’s strategic directions, transforming commitments into action and building a decarbonized, more sustainable world, driving technological and economic transformations to realize sustainable competitive advantage. To coordinate, promote, and accelerate interdisciplinary research and training on sustainability and climate, and the role of humans in the environment. Prince Sultan University is the First Saudi University to Pledge Net Zero Carbon University by 2060.

About Digital Science

Digital Science is a technology company working to make research more efficient. We invest in, nurture and support innovative businesses and technologies that make all parts of the research process more open and effective. Our portfolio includes admired brands Altmetric, Dimensions, Figshare, ReadCube, Symplectic, IFI CLAIMS Patent Services, Overleaf, Writefull, and metaphacts. We believe that together, we can help researchers make a difference. Visit www.digital-science.com and follow @digitalsci on Twitter or on LinkedIn.

About Dimensions

Part of Digital Science, Dimensions is the largest linked research database and data infrastructure provider, re-imagining research discovery with access to grants, publications, clinical trials, patents and policy documents all in one place. www.dimensions.ai

About Times Higher Education

We are THE, the trusted global data partner for higher education. Drawing on five decades of expertise in the sector, millions of individual data points and with more unique institutions participating in our flagship university rankings than any other, we offer deeper and richer insight into university performance than anyone else. From powerful data-driven insights and strategic consultancy support to agenda-setting events and hiring solutions, our products and services enable everyone in higher education to make smarter, more informed decisions.   

For more information, visit timeshighereducation.com or find us on Twitter: @timeshighered @THEworldunirank and @THEuniadvice

Media contacts

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

For more information, or to request an interview with Ishan or Phil, please contact Ben Miller: communications@timeshighereducation.com or ben.miller@timeshighereducation.com

The post Developing countries need greater recognition for research into UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) appeared first on Digital Science.

Climate change is one of the biggest threats to health.”

<strong>Dr Beth Thompson</strong>

Interim Director of Strategy, Wellcome Trust (7 February 2023)

This blog addresses the impact of climate change on infectious diseases, in particular infectious diseases with the potential to transmit from animals to humans, also known as zoonotic diseases. To set the scene for this, we first consider the wider context of how global warming has far-reaching consequences for humans and the planet. The global changes that we are currently experiencing have never happened before, with climate change representing one of the principal environmental and health challenges. We use Dimensions to explore published research, research funding, policy documents and citation data. To help us perform a deeper analysis of the data, we access the Dimensions data through its Google BigQuery (GBQ) provision. This allows us to integrate data from Dimensions with one of the  publicly available World Bank datasets on GBQ.  

We also look at the research in conjunction with two United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – SDG3 Good Health and Well-being and SDG13 Climate Action – and assess how they add to the narrative. Many of the health impacts associated with climate change are a particular threat to the poorest people in low- and middle-income countries where the burden of climate sensitive diseases is the greatest. This also suggests that the impact in these regions, based on the UN SDGs, may reach beyond climate (SDG13) and health (SDG3) to affect those who live in extreme poverty (SDG1) and/or those who experience food insecurity (SDG2).

“The climate crisis is a health crisis”

Introduction

1. Climate change and zoonotic diseases

Climate change has far-reaching implications for human health in the 21st century, with significant increases in temperature extremes, heavy precipitation, and severe droughts.¹ It directly impacts health through long-term changes in rainfall and temperature, climatic extremes (heatwaves, hurricanes, and flash floods), air quality, sea-level rise in low-land coastal regions, and many different influences on food production systems and water resources.²

In terms of human health, climate change has an important impact on the transmission of vector-borne diseases (human illnesses caused by parasites), in particular zoonotic infectious diseases (infections transmitted from animal to humans by the bite of infected arthropod species, such as mosquitoes and bats), and has a particular relevance due to the most recent COVID-19 and Zika virus outbreaks. Arthropods are of major significance due to their abundance, adaptability, and coevolution to different kinds of pathogens.³ 

Zoonotic infectious diseases are a global threat because they can become pandemics, as we have seen in the case of COVID-19, and are currently considered one of the most important threats for public health globally. The COVID pathogen spread worldwide, recording 255,324,963 cases with 5,127,696 deaths as of November 2021.⁴

One reason for this turnaround could be related to the widespread adoption of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in particular SDG6, which sets out to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”.⁹ The achievement of this Goal, even if partially, would greatly benefit people and the planet, given the importance of clean water for socio-economic development and quality of life, including health and environmental protection. SDG6 considers improvement of water quality by reducing by half the amount of wastewater that is not treated by 2030.

The changes in climatic conditions have forced many pathogens and vectors to develop adaptation mechanisms. For example, in the case of African Ebola, climate change is a factor in the rise in cases over the past two decades, with bats and other animal hosts of the virus being driven into new areas when temperatures change, potentially bringing them into closer contact with humans.  

Examples highlighting how the acceleration of zoonotic pathogens is attributable to changes in climate and ecology due to human impact are common. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), almost six out of every 10 infectious diseases can be spread from animals to humans; three out of every four emerging infectious diseases in humans originate from animals.⁵ Zoonotic diseases, such as those spread by mosquitoes and other related vectors, have increased in recent years. This is because the rise in global temperatures has created favourable conditions for breeding specific pathogens, especially in poorly developed countries predominantly in the Global South.⁶ Further, climate change is causing people’s general health to deteriorate, making it easier for zoonotic infections to spread, as seen with the Zika and dengue viruses.⁷

The changes in climatic conditions have forced pathogens and vectors to develop adaptation mechanisms. Such development has resulted in these diseases becoming resistant to conventional treatments due to their augmented resilience and survival techniques, thus further favouring the spread of infection.

2. Exploring links between climate change and zoonotic diseases as evidenced by mentions in policy documents

Developments in policy are generally rooted in academic research. Applying research to policy relevant questions is increasingly important to address potential problems and can often identify what has been successful or not successful elsewhere. Citations to the research that underpins policy documents is known to be an important (proxy) indicator of the quality of the research carried out. Awareness and the course of action taken by governments, NGOs and other health-focused institutions is evident by their activity in this area. For example, in the UK the government has recently allocated £200 million to fight zoonotic diseases.⁹ Actions that are taken relevant to this are communicated by, for example, relevant policy documents which mention the research influencing public policy decision making in this area. Policy documents provide us with a different perspective for analysis, allowing a closer proximity to ‘real world’, society-facing issues. 

3. The SDG3 and SDG13 crossover: research outputs associated with zoonotic diseases and climate change

The UN launched the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to address an ongoing crisis: human pressure leading to unprecedented environmental degradation, climatic change, social inequality, and other negative planet-wide consequences.¹⁰ There is growing evidence that environmental change and infectious disease emergence are causally linked and there is an increased recognition that SDGs are linked to one another. Thus, understanding their dynamics is central to achieving the vision of the UN 2030 Agenda. But environmental change also has direct human health outcomes via infectious disease emergence, and this link is not customarily integrated into planning for sustainable development.¹¹

Two of the 17 UN SDGs of most relevance to zoonotic diseases and climate change are SDG3 and SDG13.

Looking specifically at SDG3, reducing global infectious disease risk is one of the targets for the Goal (Target 3.3), alongside strengthening prevention strategies to identify early warning signals (Target 3.d).¹² Given the direct connection between environmental change and infectious disease risk, actions taken to achieve other SDGs also have an impact on the achievement of SDG3. Moreover, strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters is one of the targets for SDG13 (Target 13.1).¹³ The two SDGs perhaps highlight two sides of the same coin – SDG3 focusing on preventing and reducing disease risks and SDG13 focusing on strengthening resilience of climate-related hazards (infectious disease being an obvious hazard).

Exploring the crossover between SDG3 and SDG13 using Dimensions, reveals interlinkages with other SDGs – SDG1 No Poverty and SDG2 Zero Hunger. We know that living in poverty has negative impacts on health, and in respect of climate change, economic loss attributed to climate-related disasters is now a reality. Experiencing hunger can be a consequence of vulnerable agricultural practices that negatively impact food productivity and production. In 2020, between 720 and 811 million persons worldwide were suffering from hunger, as many as 161 million more than in 2019.¹⁴ Moreover, climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters progressively deteriorate land and soil quality, severely affecting the cost of food items.

4. Funding of research associated with SDG3 and SDG13 – increases in SDG research funding

Scientific advances reveal empirical observations of the association between climate change and shifts in infectious diseases. Using Dimensions we can examine the scientific evidence for this by looking at the impact of climate change on zoonotic diseases. We can also track the science, through the lens of research outputs associated with both SDG3 and SDG13.  

Being able to assess publishing and funding behaviours by comparing the Global North and Global South countries provides us with an insight into where research is both funded and ultimately published. Moreover, one question we might ask is, given that the Global South is currently hardest hit by the consequences of climate change from an infectious disease perspective, will we see changes in publishing and funding practices in the future?

Furthermore, climate change has exacerbated many influencing factors. It has generated habitat loss, pushed wild animals from hotter to cooler climates where they can mix with new animals and more people, and it has lengthened the breeding season and expanded the habitats of disease-spreading mosquitoes, ticks, etc.,¹⁵ and so we could potentially see more zoonotic infectious disease spreading to countries in the Global North. Given these factors, and the capability of Dimensions, we can make comparisons over time and geolocation to track where changes are occurring.

Dimensions search strategy and data investigation

i. Search strategies

Research data were retrieved using Digital Science’s Dimensions database and Google BigQuery (GBQ). For initial searches we created a specific search term to identify publications associated with zoonotic/infectious diseases and climate change. Two sets of terms were used to define the searching keywords. The first was made up of keywords associated with zoonotic and infectious diseases, and the second was simply one word, ‘Climate’, as follows:

Zoonoses OR "zoonotic diseases" OR "parasitic diseases" OR "zoonotic pathogens" OR "vector borne diseases" OR "climate-sensitive infectious diseases" OR "infectious disease risk" OR "infectious diseases" AND Climate.

Dimensions’ inbuilt SDG classification system allowed for the linking of research outputs associated with SDGs both individually and in combination. On this basis we were able to include SDG3 Good Health and Well-being and SDG13 Climate Action to the search, allowing us to include outputs associated with both Goals. The main focus of the search carried out was on peer-reviewed articles and government policy documents between 2010 and 2022. A set of 1,436 research publications were retrieved and entered into further analyses separately. The research outputs retrieved shared a focus on the impact of climate change on pathogen, host and transmission of human zoonotic/infectious diseases.

A dataset based on the research outputs retrieved from Dimensions was created within GBQ. This allowed integration with publicly available datasets from the World Bank to ascertain low and high income countries and regions. The Dimensions GBQ provision also facilitates in-depth targeted analyses. This allowed us to look solely at the publications resulting from our search in order to identify trends in concepts, citations, policy documents and collaborations by geographic region.

ii. Findings

a) Publication timeline trends for research outputs tagged in Dimensions jointly with SDG3 and SDG13 and associated with zoonotic/infectious diseases and climate change were plotted.

Figure 3 highlights the trajectory over a 13-year time period for publications associated with both SDG3 and SDG13 in Dimensions. Of note, following implementation of the UN SDGs in January 2016, the upward trend in numbers of publications begins to rise sharply until the end of 2021, with a dip in 2022.

b) Co-authorship analysis: Collaboration by geographic region

Figure 4a reveals that for every 40 publications authored in a high-income country, one publication was in collaboration with a low-income country-based researcher. Figure 4b reveals that two in three publications authored by low-income country based researchers have been in collaboration with high-income country based researchers. We conclude from this that it is proportionately more likely for low-income country researchers to collaborate with researchers in the Global North than for researchers in the Global North to collaborate with researchers in the Global South. However, it is important to note here that numbers of research outputs are disproportionate between the global regions (see Table 1 below). 

Table 1 outlines the combined total number of authors of published research in the Global South and Global North, including the proportion of researchers against the total number of researchers in each of these regions. The figures in the table reveal that proportionally the number of researchers publishing research on zoonotic diseases and climate change is higher than that of higher-income countries. We argue here that this research focus is not necessarily a niche area for Global South countries (even though their number of research outputs and activity is low in real terms). Consideration of the number of authors publishing zoonotic diseases and climate change research papers against numbers of authors publishing in areas associated more generally with SDG3 and SDG13 provides a glimpse of the breadth of sustainable development research of which our topic area is just one component. 

Despite the crossover with SDG3 and SDG13 not being high, it shows that the engagement of researchers in low-income countries with zoonotic diseases research is notable and contributes to research progress in this area. However, the research is better represented if we look proportionally. For example, 52 researchers in low-income countries represent 8% of the number of zoonotic disease researchers in high-income countries (618), but the total number of researchers publishing overall in low-income countries (45,285) represents just 0.5% of all researchers in high-income countries (7.7 million) making the proportional contribution by low-income country researchers 40 times greater than high-income country researchers in this research area.

c) Research publications by geographic region

Figure 5 above reveals a total of 1,419 research publications pre- and post-SDG period from 2010-2022 by country income group have been captured by Dimensions. The numbers represented in the chart reveal that publications have at least one author in the country income groupings outlined. In order to incorporate collaborations, a publication is included twice if it includes an author within each income group. This only applies for the analysis of country income groups. It allows us to see any increases/decreases in collaborative behaviour. In this respect, we note the contribution (either through collaborating or writing their own publications) from low/low-medium-income (Global South) countries has risen both in number and as a proportion of the outputs from 2010.

d) Citation analysis by geographic regions

The data in Figure 6a and 6b above reveal that:

1. South-East Asia as a producer of this research is dominant in the Global South (see Fig. 6b).

2. In the Global South, South-East Asia both publishes research and favourably cites research from the same region (see Fig. 6a).

3. Research output in South-East Asia is not as highly cited by the Global North (see Fig. 6b). What is notable however, is the overall dominance of the Global North for both research output and citation counts. We conjecture one reason for why this might be the case is that the Global South may not have access to the same level of funding or collaboration opportunities. Moreover, differences in research focus could account for the distinction. Moreover, interest in these areas by high-income country research(ers) may be less pronounced than those research areas elsewhere in the Global South (eg, Africa) where there is more collaboration, or more ‘gain’ for Global North countries (Ebola, Zika etc). For example, if India’s research focus was local to aspects of zoonotic diseases that only affect this country, then it might be less likely that higher income countries would cite the research. This warrants a deeper dive into the data to uncover such findings but is outside the scope of the blog.

In conclusion, it is perhaps the case that areas which are most affected by climate change and zoonotic diseases have become publication ‘hotspots’ which are not yet attractive to researchers in Global North countries.

e) Funding – by income/geography; Funder type

The general trend seen in Fig. 7 above reveals government funding to be the major driving force in zoonotic diseases and climate change research in all of the country groupings.  What Dimensions reveals in this respect is that governments in the Global North provide 100% of the government funding that is held in the Dimensions database for research on these topics in the Global South. This would explain perhaps why low-income countries in the Global South, where research infrastructure isn’t as well funded, receives less government funding as it is awarded by the Global North. Looking at funding from non-profit sources, which includes organisations such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Science and Technology Development Fund, we note that such organisations provide nearly a quarter of all research funding held in Dimensions, in the Global South. As with government funding, 98% of all non-profit research funding in both regions comes from non-profit organisations in the Global North. It is interesting to note, given the focus of the research, that only a very small proportion of funding is received across all funder types from the healthcare sector. All other funders included in Fig. 7 92.5% of funding comes from the Global North (healthcare funding is included in this figure).¹⁶

f) Policy documents and their citing publications

In Dimensions, policy sources and document types range from government guidelines, reports or white papers; independent policy institute publications; advisory committees on specific topics; research institutes; and international development organisations. The top 12 policy publishers that are outlined in Fig. 8 above represent those publishers of policies citing research outputs associated with climate change and zoonotic diseases. It is perhaps not unexpected that the number of publications cited by the World Health Organization would be high given its global vision to eliminate the disease burden globally and to reverse climate change. Zoonotic diseases are very much on the radar of the global agencies concerned with global health which, given climate change, means that spread of these diseases in the Global North is more likely.

Takeaway findings

Using Dimensions’ capability to take a deep dive into research exploring zoonotic diseases and climate change in the context of SDGs has enabled us to uncover a number of interesting findings that are illuminating in the context of a world view.

Our investigations have revealed several interesting findings, including:

• Research publications in this area have increased more than two-fold since the implementation of the SDGs.  
• Collaboration patterns in the Global North and Global South reveal that researchers in Global South countries are more likely to collaborate with researchers in the Global North than vice versa.
• The total number of authors publishing research on zoonotic diseases and climate change in the lowest-income countries represents 8% of the total number of zoonotic disease researchers in high-income countries (see Table 1). Expanding this out across all research publications, the total number of researchers publishing in low-income countries represents just 0.5% of all researchers in high-income countries, making the proportional representation of low-income country researchers 40 times greater than high-income country researchers. Although actual numbers would reveal a different story, we believe that depicting the data in this way provides a balanced representation of the research output.
• Research carried out on zoonotic diseases and climate change in the lower income countries is less well cited by higher income countries.
• The data in Dimensions highlights that government organisations in the Global North award much of the funding for research in the Global South, and likewise for funding from non-profit agencies. What we might consider here as an explanation is that numerous organisations in the Global North such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the SCI Foundation, along with governments, are committed to the elimination of zoonotic diseases and in helping reduce carbon emissions to reverse climate change at a global level.

Conclusion

What is apparent is that governments around the world are investing large sums of money as part of the global mission to halt the spread of animal diseases and to protect the public against zoonotic disease outbreaks before they become pandemics that pose a risk globally.

Digital Science’s Dimensions database provided us with enormous opportunities for the interrogation of data to gather insights on zoonotic diseases and climate change (much more than could be included in this blog). The comprehensiveness of the database in terms of its coverage of publications, policy documents, grant funding and SDG-associated output (among others) in the Global North and Global South allows for creating the most value. As a linked research database, the possibilities for generating downstream link- and flow- analyses across geographies means it is an invaluable tool for the widest possible discovery across the research ecosystem.

¹ https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40121-022-00647-3.pdf

² Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken,et al. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.

³ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4459090/pdf/fpubh-03-00157.pdf

⁴ Ajuwon BI, Roper K, Richardson A, Lidbury BA. One Health Approach: A Data-Driven Priority for Mitigating Outbreaks of Emerging and Re-Emerging Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2021 Dec 29;7(1):4. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed7010004. PMID: 35051120; PMCID: PMC8780196

⁵ Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(2), 893; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020893

⁶ We use the terms Global North/Global South and High- high middle income and low- low middle income countries interchangeably.

⁷ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31196187/

⁸ https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11356-020-08896-w

⁹ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/200-million-investment-to-fight-zoonotic-diseases#:~:text=The%20%C2%A3200%20million%20funding,Capability%20in%20Animal%20Health%20programme

¹⁰ https://news.un.org/en/search/Sustainable%20development%20goals

¹¹ https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2001655117

¹² https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal3

¹³ https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal13

¹⁴ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/

¹⁵ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/inevitable-outbreaks-spillovers-pandemics

¹⁶ It is important to note here that Dimensions funding data is skewed towards the Global North.

The post Zooming in on zoonotic diseases appeared first on Digital Science.

New data shows industry has stronger focus on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions of current fuel sources, less commitment to renewables and ‘Net Zero’

A new study by world leaders in patent data has revealed some unusual trends in energy tech R&D, questioning whether companies are more committed to extracting fossil fuels or in pursuing genuinely ‘green’, renewable energy technologies.

IFI CLAIMS Patent Services – a Digital Science company dedicated to providing the world’s most trusted patent data for research, innovation and technology – says data on both patent applications and patents awarded in recent years offers telling insights into the innovations being pursued by industry, and whether they’re really committed to achieving ‘Net Zero’.

IFI has today released its report after studying patent trends in two key classifications:

• E21B (earth drilling for obtaining oil, gas, water, soluble or meltable materials or a slurry of minerals from wells)
• Y02E (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, related to energy generation, transmission or distribution).

IFI has found that drilling technology has risen to third place in the Top 10 Fastest Growing Technologies of 2022, up from sixth place in 2021.

CEO of IFI CLAIMS Patent Services Mike Baycroft says that at a company R&D level, “purely renewable energy doesn’t appear to be getting the kind of money it needs for the widespread adoption necessary to get the world to ‘Net Zero’”.

“Energy companies continue to invest in R&D and seek decades of patent protection for extracting fuel from the earth. According to our analysis, the lion’s share of ‘green’ patents are focused on modifying the negative effects of conventional energy sources, such as fossil fuels – to make those sources of energy ‘cleaner’ – rather than renewables receiving R&D investment. This suggests fossil fuels will be part of the energy picture for decades to come,” he says.

Mr Baycroft adds: “When separated out from other ‘green’ patent data, the patents relating purely to renewable energy technology have dropped significantly below those for earth drilling technology.

“This occurs in both patent applications – where earth drilling applications outpaced renewable energy applications in 2022 – and in patents awarded, where earth drilling technology has been outperforming renewables since 2018.”

To compare, according to IFI CLAIMS data, the number of patents awarded to the top three companies for earth drilling technology far outstrips the number for top companies investing in renewable energy technology:

Top three companies investing in earth drilling technology over the past five years:

• Halliburton Energy Services Inc (7,153 patent applications)
• Saudi Arabian Oil Co (3,423 patent applications)
• Schlumberger Technology Corp (2,854 patent applications)

Top companies investing in renewable energy technology over the past five years (by field):

• Wind energy: Vestas Wind Systems AS (988 patent applications)
• Geothermal: Ice thermal Harvesting LLC (27 patent applications)
• Green hydrogen: Toshiba Corp (104 patent applications)
• Photovoltaic (solar): Samsung Display Co Ltd (2,369 patent applications)

The full briefing report on renewables versus earth drilling technologies can be found on the IFI CLAIMS website: https://www.ificlaims.com/news/view/briefing-2022-energy-sourcing.htm

Renewables and earth drilling technology patents are just two examples of insights provided by IFI CLAIMS and its partners. For other sector analysis, visit the IFI CLAIMS Live 1000, a free tool that uses data from the CLAIMS Direct platform to rank the top 1000 companies and assignees by country or jurisdiction. 

About IFI CLAIMS Patent Services

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

About Digital Science

Digital Science is a technology company working to make research more efficient. We invest in, nurture and support innovative businesses and technologies that make all parts of the research process more open and effective. Our portfolio includes admired brands Altmetric, Dimensions, Figshare, ReadCube, Symplectic, IFI CLAIMS, Overleaf, Ripeta, and Writefull. We believe that together, we can help researchers make a difference. Visit www.digital-science.com and follow @digitalsci on Twitter.

Media contacts

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

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

The post ‘Green’ energy patents more focused on ‘clean’ conventional energy instead of renewables appeared first on Digital Science.

After a year of extreme weather events, from record heatwaves to disastrous flooding, this year’s COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, will be crucial as the world seeks to take steps together toward mitigating and preventing the worst impacts of climate change. 

A UN Climate Change ‘Global Innovation Hub’ (UGIH) will be held during COP27, accessible digitally for the first time to enable greater collaboration, and is set to “ratchet up the scale and effectiveness of innovation in tackling climate change and help deliver on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals”. The UGIH aims to accelerate action across both the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda. 

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are designed to be a blueprint for achieving a better and more sustainable future for all by addressing the global challenges we face. The SDGs are at the centre of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and represent an urgent call for action by all countries – both developed and developing – in global partnership. They recognise that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth – all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests.

Tracking and reporting on SDGs in Elements 

Since SDGs were first introduced, there has been a growing vested interest in tracking, analysing and showcasing the ways in which researchers are contributing to achieving these goals, and in demonstrating global research impact at an institutional level. This can be clearly seen in the increasing numbers of institutions participating in the Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings, which in 2022 showed a 23% increase from 2021. THE Impact Rankings are the only global performance tables that assess universities against SDGs, and currently show participation across 110 countries and regions.   

This year we introduced simple but powerful functionality into Elements, allowing institutions to track which research outputs, publications, and activities connect back to the 17 SDGs via use of a new label scheme. SDG labels can be applied to any items captured in Elements (eg. publications, grants, professional & teaching activities and records of impact). 

Labels can be applied manually, in bulk via the Elements API, or automatically through our Dimensions integration. Dimensions uses machine-learning to automatically analyse publications and grants, and map them to relevant SDGs. Dimensions maps SDG labels to over 12.9 million publications and hundreds of thousands of grants, with more records being analysed and mapped all the time. These labels are now automatically harvested into Elements together with other metadata on Dimensions records. Those who are licensed to use Dimensions as a data source can further exploit the benefit of having SDG labels harvested and applied to records automatically.

Read our Digital Science report on Contextualising Sustainable Development Research.

Once collected, SDG data can be used for powerful reporting purposes, whether at an individual, school, or institutional level. We have introduced stock dashboards to support initial reporting on SDG labels. These tools can help research institutions demonstrate which individuals, schools or groups are focused most on specific SDGs, analyse gaps and areas of further necessary investment, and even demonstrate return on investment for funding.

Labels can also be applied to user profiles and surfaced in public profiles within the Discovery Module add-on to Elements, helping external researchers, members of the press and other stakeholders identify specialists working toward particular sustainability goals (see examples of public profiles showcasing SDG labelling at Oklahoma State University or Lincoln University). This can help drive discoverability of research, open up opportunities for greater collaboration and innovation, and support the public understanding and availability of science by connecting the media to knowledgeable scientific sources. 

Users can search and filter by specific SDGs they are interested in to find researchers specialising in that field, while the researchers themselves can showcase their work within their own profiles. 

Applying the SDG framework to Elements facilitates and supports both internal and external collaboration and innovation, advancing global efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

SDG Case Study: Carnegie Mellon University 

Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) is a private, global research university which stands among the world’s most renowned educational institutions. CMU acquired Elements in 2017 and now uses the platform across a wide range of use cases, including “service tracking, faculty annual reviews, publications and monitoring, public directory, custom reporting, data visualization and analysis, data feeds to external websites, open access research and scholarship, data migration from historical systems, researcher identity management, and mapping faculty research to Sustainable Development Goals”. Read more.

During 2021, the University Libraries worked alongside the Provost Office’s Sustainability Initiative to conduct the Sustainable Development Goal mapping with a set of early adopters.

A recent news post on the Carnegie Mellon libraries blog on their ongoing expansion of Elements across campus explains how Director of Sustainability Initiatives Alexandra Hiniker utilised Elements to support faculty in thinking critically about how their work aligns with the 2030 Agenda.

“One thing I’ve heard consistently from students, faculty, staff, and external partners that I work with here in Pittsburgh, across the country, and around the world, is that they want to know what our CMU community is doing on the range of sustainable development goals that cover everything from poverty and hunger, to good health and wellbeing, peaceful, just and strong institutions, reducing inequalities, and of course, climate action,” explains Hiniker in a recent video interview published by the university. “There’s so much great work going on across CMU but it’s hard to pull out all of that information, and share it with all of these different people who are interested in collaboration.

“As part of my role linking students, staff, and faculty across the campus to sustainability efforts, I heard from them that the most important thing was to connect to different parts of the university to which they usually didn’t have access,” Hiniker explained. “Elements is a way for people to quickly access information about what researchers are doing, so that they can help contribute to finding solutions to some of the world’s greatest challenges.”

Elements is now providing a centralized space for CMU’s campus researchers to record which SDGs are associated with their research outputs and other academic activities. The Libraries’ Elements reporting and data visualization team worked with the Sustainability Initiatives Office to build reporting dashboards which surface data on how faculty initiatives and research across campus are supporting specific SDGs. 

You can hear more from Hiniker directly in this short interview:

Find out more or get support

Elements can help you track and report on how your researchers are contributing towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as we all work towards achieving a better and more sustainable future for all. Not only does this make participation in the THE Impact Rankings far simpler, it also helps you demonstrate your commitment to global progress to researchers and faculty, prospective students, funders, and other key stakeholders. If you’d like to get in touch to learn more about Elements, or if you’re a current client who’d like more information on how to integrate Dimensions as a data source, or surface SDG labels in public profiles, please get in touch to find out more. 

The Digital Science Consultancy team can also produce tailored analysis for non-profits, governments, funders, research institutions and STEM publishers to inform strategy to meet organisational goals. We can help you relate the influence and impact that your organisation has to research on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The post Demonstrating real impact: SDG reporting for institutions appeared first on Digital Science.

The world’s research effort into wastewater pollution caused by the textiles industry has increased threefold over the past five years, according to a new analysis released this week in the lead up to Earth Day (Friday 22 April).

The rise in research correlates with the implementation in 2016 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030, particularly SD6, relating to clean water and sanitation for all.

The analysis, conducted by Digital Science’s Dr Briony Fane and Dr Juergen Wastl, utilised data from Dimensions, which is a master database of the world’s research and all aspects of the wider research ecosystem, spanning 126 million publications.

Using Dimensions, Dr Fane and Dr Wastl discovered almost 4,500 research papers published over the past 10 years that specifically dealt with wastewater pollution and the textiles industry. The majority of those have been published since 2017, and many are specifically tied in with the UN’s SDGs.

“Part of the idea behind our analysis was to see whether the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals have impacted on research into wastewater pollution and the textiles industry, and that appears to be supported by the data,” says Dr Wastl, who is the Director of Academic Relations & Consultancy, Digital Science.

Dr Fane, a Research Analyst with Digital Science, says: “Water contamination and pollution is one of the world’s most critical environmental challenges, affecting both developing and developed nations. It’s well documented that the textiles and fashion industries have accelerated this major impact on our planet, to the detriment of human health, biodiversity, and society.

“Textile dyeing is the second-largest polluter of water worldwide, with the fashion industry producing 20% of the world’s wastewater alone. This is because textile manufacturers use large amounts of water and the resulting wastewater produces highly polluted discharge.”

With China’s water quality now among the world’s worst, Dr Fane and Dr Wastl wanted to see how much of a contribution China was making to research aimed at helping to solve the problem. 

Research revealed that the leading nations publishing on wastewater pollution and the textiles industry include China, India, Turkey, Iran, Brazil, and the United States.

The majority of research occurred in the fields of engineering, environmental engineering, chemical engineering, and chemical sciences, with key areas of research focused mainly on wastewater treatment and related technologies, the dyeing process, and the chemicals involved in dyeing.

Dr Wastl says: “Understanding the factors that impact on the water environment is vital for future water conservation efforts. It is our hope that this analysis will provide some insights into the global efforts to combat water pollution, and to help show where further activity in this area might be directed.”

Read the full analysis.

For more information about how Dimensions can provide detailed insights into the research ecosystem, visit the Dimensions website.

Digital Science is a technology company working to make research more efficient. We invest in, nurture and support innovative businesses and technologies that make all parts of the research process more open and effective. Our portfolio includes admired brands Altmetric, Dimensions, Figshare, ReadCube, Symplectic, IFI CLAIMS, GRID, Overleaf, Ripeta and Writefull. We believe that together, we can help researchers make a difference. Visit www.digital-science.com and follow @digitalsci on Twitter.

Dimensions is a modern, innovative, linked-research-knowledge system that re-imagines discovery and access to research. Developed by Digital Science in collaboration with over 100 research organisations around the world, Dimensions brings together grants, publications, citations, alternative metrics, clinical trials, patents and datasets. Dimensions delivers a platform that enables users to find and access the most relevant information faster, analyse the academic and broader outcomes of research, and gather insights to inform future strategy. Visit Dimensions’ website at https://dimensions.ai and follow @DSDimensions on Twitter.

Media contacts

Dr Briony Fane, Research Analyst, Digital Science: b.fane@digital-science.com

Dr Juergen Wastl, Director, Digital Science Consultancy: j.wastl@digital-science.com

David Ellis, Press, PR & Social Manager, Digital Science: d.ellis@digital-science.com

The post UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have impact on textile wastewater pollution research appeared first on Digital Science.

“Good water quality is essential to human health, social and economic development, and the ecosystem. However, as populations grow and natural environments become degraded, ensuring there are sufficient and safe water supplies for everyone is becoming increasingly challenging. A major part of the solution is to produce less pollution and improve the way we manage wastewater.” ¹

The increase in water contamination and pollution due to human activity has resulted in one of today’s most critical environmental challenges, with worsening water pollution affecting both developed and developing countries. In the latter, it is mostly due to rapid population growth and urbanisation, increased industrial and other economic activities, as well as political and public apathy to improve and maintain water and wastewater management processes in the long-term.²

Untreated wastewater has a severely detrimental impact on the environment, and the rapid industrialisation that has been evident during the last few decades has significantly increased the amount of pollutants in the environment. Improper treatment of some hazardous industrial wastes released into bodies of water has had toxic effects on all types of life forms, both directly and indirectly.³ Textile dyeing is the second-largest polluter of water worldwide, with the fashion industry producing 20% of the world’s wastewater alone. This is because textile manufacturers use large amounts of water and the resulting wastewater produces highly polluted discharge.

Research has shown that the social and economic development in China has led to a significant deterioration in the water environment, which has limited sustainable regional development.⁴  The textile industry in China is one of the country’s most important industries. Its biggest impact on the environment is related to primary water consumption and wastewater discharge. The manufacturing of textiles has created serious challenges for water sustainability, characterised by intensive chemical consumption and waterborne pollution.⁵

Understanding the factors that impact on the water environment is vital for future water conservation efforts. With the acceleration of industrialisation, China’s water quality has deteriorated to become one of the world’s worst,⁶ and it has the fourth largest freshwater reserves in the world alongside one fifth of the world’s population. Due to increasing demands over water use, such resources are being increasingly and extensively exploited for economic purposes.⁷ However, in recent years, the Chinese government has implemented more stringent environmental regulations in an attempt to change the situation.⁸

One reason for this turnaround could be related to the widespread adoption of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in particular SDG6, which sets out to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”.⁹ The achievement of this Goal, even if partially, would greatly benefit people and the planet, given the importance of clean water for socio-economic development and quality of life, including health and environmental protection. SDG6 considers improvement of water quality by reducing by half the amount of wastewater that is not treated by 2030.

Digital Science’s goal is to try to change the scientific ecosystem by challenging the way things are done and act To interrogate the research being done on this important topic, we used Dimensions to identify research publications associated with wastewater and the textile manufacturing industry with the intention of seeing each country’s – in particular China’s – contribution to research in this space.  An initial search looked at wastewater and water pollution to clarify the extent of research output in this area, and to identify the countries where there appeared to be a significant research focus.The extent of research being undertaken across these domains highlighted the countries with the greatest number of publications in wastewater pollution, and showed that China, the United States and India in particular, had the greatest research output.

Delving deeper into the data from DImensions, we developed a more specific search focusing on wastewater and water pollution while also introducing terms related to the textile industry, thus creating a narrower search focus.¹⁰  We also used keywords sourced following an extensive literature search – the full search string can be found at the end of this blog. Using the detailed search we investigated this area of research in the context of a number of domains including the UN SDGs, Fields of Research (FoRs), and also looked at the top research producing countries to explore research outputs in more detail (see Fig.2 below).

The detailed search resulted in 4,446 publications identified in Dimensions across a 10-year time period (see Fig. 3 below). An increased upward trend from 2017 to 2021 is evident, which is suggestive that the years following implementation of the UN SDGs in 2016, highlights the increased importance of research in this domain. Looking at the percentage differences (see Table 1) where the pre-SDG has been compared with post-SDG, time periods, the difference is clearly evident, with a threefold increase in published research after the implementation of the SDGs, again potentially indicative of this influence and the 2030 Agenda.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), wastewater and textile manufacturing, in Dimensions

Academic institutions play a crucial role in ensuring the success of the SDGs, and scientific research is one of the most relevant dimensions for the achievement of the 2030 SDG Agenda.¹¹ It addresses real-world problems, societal needs, and innovative technologies necessary to break new ground for sustainable development.

Taking the research outputs following the detailed search, we filtered for those publications that have been classified as relating to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (using the Dimensions SDG classification system – see Fig. 4 below).

In total, Dimensions generated 572 SDG associated outputs. Of this total, 272 were related to SDG6 ‘Clean Water and Sanitation’, revealing it as one of the main SDG drivers for sustainable development research. Within SDG6 there are eight outcome targets, the third of which -Target 6.3 – is especially relevant here. It demands that: “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimising release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally”.

Looking at the FoR categories associated with the outputs we note that the 272 SDG6 outputs are predominantly associated with Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Chemical Engineering and Chemical Sciences. It is understood that realising SDG6 includes overcoming numerous challenges, one of which is water pollution from the release of hazardous materials by the textile industry, and the fields of research highlighted above fit well with publications that might address overcoming such challenges.

We also found that SDG7 (‘Affordable and Green Energy’ – 232 outputs) has a similar trajectory to that of SDG6 with a sharper increase of publications year on year from 2017, following the implementation of the UN SDGs (See Fig. 4).  It is also an SDG where one might expect a considerable overlap with SDG6. To investigate this, we looked at the FoR categories associated with SDG7 and found that they were the same as for SDG6, predominantly in the fields of Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Chemical Sciences and Chemical Engineering. 

Fields of Research (FoRs) categories, wastewater, water pollution and textile manufacturing

Table 2 below outlines the top six research producing countries as evidenced by the highest number of publications in the five dominant FoR categories – the research focus direction.   What is apparent here is that China is the top research producing country with approximately 50% of its published research identified as being in the FoRs of Engineering and Chemical Sciences categories, whereas for India and Turkey it is in the FoRs Engineering and Environmental Engineering categories. For all of the six countries identified, Engineering is the top FoR category.¹²

Keyword co-occurrence analysis

A keyword co-occurrence analysis of all the keywords attached to the published research in the specified search was carried out using VOSviewer¹³ (See Fig, 6 below). The VOSviewer tool allows the evaluation of all keywords attached to the publications and assesses the strength of the links between them. It attaches a relevance score providing an indication of the strength of the links to the topic of the publication. The colours of the nodes refer to their average relevance amongst the links that have been counted (tenuous links are not counted as relevant) and the higher co-occurrence amongst items is represented by the size of the nodes.

Following an interrogation of the keyword co-occurrences involved in the network visualisation outlined below, their links to FoRs becomes evident: 

• The blue and lime green clusters connect and centre around the dyeing process and chemicals involved in this, and are chiefly associated with the Chemical Sciences FoR category.  
• The red cluster mainly overlaps with the purple cluster and relates to components of wastewater and treatment technologies and is associated with the Engineering FoR. 
• The green cluster and the lime green cluster are also connected and relate to treatment efficiencies and conditions centred around dyeing, and associate with Engineering, Chemical Sciences and Physical Chemistry FoR categories.

These observations allow for a different perspective on the association amongst fields of research and we are able to see more comprehensive relationships revealing their multidisciplinary nature. 

Conclusions

The main focus of this blog was to look at wastewater and water pollution in textile manufacturing and to explore the association between the scientific literature within two of Dimensions’ classification systems – SDGs and FoRs. The article has set out a descriptive analysis of features of the research on wastewater pollution in the textile industry.

We carried out an initial search using Dimensions to assess how much of the research literature could be associated with wastewater and water pollution.  Having established that Dimensions yielded a substantial number of publications (256,967 outputs), we narrowed down the focus of the search by increasing the number of search terms to create a search string that focused more specifically on wastewater and water pollution within the textile industry. The rationale for this was that textile manufacturing has developed rapidly in recent years which has led to increasing concerns regarding textile wastewater pollution. This search yielded 4,475 publications. We were particularly interested in looking at how much textile manufacturing wastewater research underpinned the SDGs, in particular SDG6 Clean Water and Sanitation, as well as looking at timelines to ascertain any potential trends, such as those that might be evident pre- and post-SDG implementation. The results indicated that the number of research publications did sharply increase post-SDG implementation and that SDG6, as well as SDG7, Affordable and Green Energy, were the main SDG drivers of this research. Given the overlapping nature of these two SDGs, it makes sense that they both would feature highly. 

A further layer of interest was our investigation of the Fields of Research classifications underpinning the outputs from the Dimensions search, which revealed, not unexpectedly, that wastewater pollution in textile manufacturing has been studied in a number of different FoR categories, with publications in Engineering, Environmental Engineering and Chemical Sciences being the most published areas, followed by Chemical Sciences.  In an attempt to understand potential differences in research focus in different countries we looked at the top six research producing countries and FoR categories, which revealed that China came top with 608 publications, followed by India with 533 and Turkey with 279 publications.

Finally, using VOSviewer to create a network co-occurrence analysis, we confirmed our findings highlighting those areas of research focusing on the environment, on the chemistry involved, on water, and its treatment in the urban environment, as well as textile dyes and their removal.

For more information about how Dimensions can provide detailed insights into the research ecosystem, please visit the Dimensions website.

¹ https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/quality-and-wastewater/

² https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-020-0069-3

³ https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/chapterhtml/2021/bk9781839162794-00001?isbn=978-1-83916-279-4&sercode=bk

⁴ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2021.744224/full

⁵ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135421008502?via%3Dihub

⁶ https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12197841

⁷ https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-32845-4_9

⁸ https://www.iea.org/reports/an-energy-sector-roadmap-to-carbon-neutrality-in-china

⁹ https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal6

¹⁰ Detailed search string
((“textile production” AND “water pollution”) OR (“garment dyes” AND pollution) OR (“textile manufacturing” AND wastewater) OR (“textile processes” AND pollution) OR (“wastewater discharge” AND “textile industry”) OR (“water eutrophication” AND textiles) OR (“Water Ten Plan”) OR (“untreated wastewater” AND “textile production”) OR (“wastewater treatment” AND textiles) OR (“garment dye” AND “water pollution”) OR (“garment dyes” AND “water pollution”) OR (“textile manufacturing” AND water pollution) OR (“textile pollutants AND wastewater”) OR (“wastewater chemical pollutants” AND “textile production”) OR (“wastewater chemical pollutants” AND “textile manufacturing”) OR (“water pollutant discharge” AND “textile production”) OR (“textiles wastewater”) OR (“industrial water pollution”))

¹¹ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.620743/full

¹² It is important to caveat here that given the narrow focus, numbers are small and relative and differences are not substantial.

¹³ van Eck, N. J.; Waltman, L. (2010) VOSViewer: Visualizing Scientific Landscapes [Software]. Available from https://www.vosviewer.com

The post When economy meets environment: Sustainable development and the case of wastewater pollution in textile manufacturing appeared first on Digital Science.