Why Annual Reviews bought Underline Science
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Richard Gallagher and Jernej Masnec discuss AI, conferences and the future of scholarly communities worldwide following Annual Reviews’ acquisition of Underline Science
How does Annual Reviews see the relationship between journals, conferences, and community engagement changing?
As AI gets better at finding, summarising, and integrating information, the roles of different communication channels are evolving. Journal articles are increasingly complemented by datasets, software, and other machine-readable assets designed for large-scale computational analysis. We believe that the easier and more automated access to information becomes, the greater the demand for human interaction. Researchers will place even greater value on in-person and online communities where ideas are exchanged, assumptions challenged, and collaborations formed. AI can commoditise information, but not community.
Our expansion into conferences complements the role of the Annual Reviews journals. As AI reshapes knowledge discovery, the judgment of trusted experts becomes more important, not less. The reviews will combine human insight with AI capabilities, while conferences provide the communities in which knowledge is debated, refined, and extended. Together, they support the synthesis of knowledge and the progress of research.
Was this mainly about business growth, mission, or both?
Primarily mission. But “no margin, no mission” is never far from our thinking, so we look for opportunities that both advance our mission and make business sense. Our mission is to synthesise and integrate knowledge for the progress of science and the benefit of society, and Underline can help advance both goals.
We believe it can contribute to research progress by strengthening conferences and other gatherings for scholarly communities. More on that below.
Underline also creates new opportunities to engage practitioners, policymakers, and other leaders with the potential of research to address real-world challenges. Drawing on our relationships with experts across the 51 fields covered by Annual Reviews, we see considerable scope to bring researchers together with policymakers, civic leaders, healthcare organisations, philanthropies, and others who can apply research insights. For example, we could convene city leaders with researchers in climate science, engineering, and public health to explore strategies for protecting vulnerable populations during extreme heat events.
By creating forums where researchers and those responsible for implementation can learn from one another, we hope to strengthen the connection between scientific knowledge and societal impact.
How important is preserving conference content, and will conference outputs grow in importance?
Conference content is too valuable to lose. While journal articles remain the cornerstone of the scholarly record, conferences often generate new ideas and insightful discussion. Ensuring those insights remain available beyond the event enriches scholarship.
To maximise their value, conference outputs should be accompanied by rich metadata and enhanced by AI tools that improve discoverability, accessibility, and reuse. Platforms such as Underline curate presentations, videos, posters, and related materials, ensuring they remain discoverable, citable, and available for future research.
Equally important is establishing trust through clear assurances of provenance, authenticity, and integrity. This is why Underline content, alongside the full range of Annual Reviews output, will be used in the development of the TrustMarc Initiative. As scholarly communication becomes increasingly multimedia and interconnected, conference outputs should be recognised as durable, trusted, and citable scholarly contributions in their own right.
Does Annual Reviews now see itself as something broader than a publisher?
We are fairly relaxed about this question. If academic publishing is defined as the creation, validation, dissemination, application, and preservation of scholarly knowledge, rather than by any particular format, it comfortably encompasses all Annual Reviews activities. We haven’t (so far) been bold enough to explore partnerships with TikTok or Instagram creators, for example, but if those activities were undertaken in service of communicating, applying, and extending scholarly knowledge, they could still fit within that definition. The defining characteristic is not the format, but the contribution.
What problems are you hoping this helps scientific societies solve?
Many scientific societies face a challenging environment. Services offered by Underline as part of Annual Reviews can assist them in several ways:
- Making events more sustainable and cost-effective through streamlined, end-to-end support tailored to the needs and scale of individual conferences. This includes an event app, onsite audiovisual services, video preservation, ticketing, attendee and speaker management, and global coordination.
- Strengthening community engagement and increasing attendance by leveraging Annual Reviews’ journals, websites, newsletters, and relationships across 51 disciplines to connect conferences with relevant research communities.
- Broadening participation by supporting engagement for remote participants who might otherwise be unable to attend.
- Extending the value of conferences by preserving and hosting presentations, making them accessible beyond the event itself.
- Preparing conference content for the AI era by making videos, transcripts, and metadata available for machine learning and generative AI applications, potentially creating new revenue opportunities.
- Supporting researchers and speakers through preparation, training, and technical assistance.
Looking five years ahead, what would make this a success – better events, or rethinking how communities connect?
That’s a long timeframe these days. New technologies are likely to improve events in ways we can’t yet fully imagine. More immersive forms of remote participation seem likely, along with greater diversity in events themselves – in their topics, scale, modes of participation, and intended outcomes.
Our expectation is that we will help societies enhance existing conferences and develop new kinds of events that serve the evolving needs of their communities. We should also see conference outputs more deeply integrated into the scholarly corpus, ensuring that the knowledge they generate remains accessible, discoverable, and reusable.
Beyond scholarly communication, we hope to establish collaborations with partners across civil society to create forums that increase the influence of research in everyday life and contribute to addressing specific societal challenges.
If, five years from now, we have helped create more impactful events, stronger scholarly communities, broader access to knowledge, and greater societal benefit from research, we would consider that a success.
Richard Gallagher is President and Editor-in-Chief of Annual Reviews; Jernej Masnec is CEO of Underline Science
Interview by Tim Gillett