Breaking down silos and beating donkeys with carrots

Hannah Baldwin offers her insights from this year’s Researcher to Reader conference, held in London

Researcher to Reader is a highlight in the scholarly ecosystem diary, and for me this year’s event (#R2R25) proved to be refreshingly candid, with participants speaking openly about some of the challenges faced with a more pragmatic, solutions-focussed approach than perhaps we are used to.

If I had to sum up the conference, I rather liked the quirky quote from the conference organiser, Mark Carden: “It feels like we are beating the donkey with the carrot and trying to tempt it with the stick”, which seemed to capture rather well the world we are working in.

It’s always a great opportunity to meet new people, catch up with old friends and to see what’s keeping people awake. This year, several themes stood out – this is my take on some of them.

“How do I do this?”

R2R has highlighted a significant education gap for early-career academics – there is no comprehensive guide provided by institutions, publishers, or funders to help researchers navigate the complexities of publishing, open data practices, and research integrity from day one. As one participant noted: “Not everyone is a bad actor if they make a mistake.”

Many researchers simply don’t know what they need to do, and we could do worse than to prioritise developing support resources that promote good practices. By recalibrating incentives to prioritise integrity over reputation and revenue, and advocating for education as a key driver of openness and ethical practices, we can better support early-career researchers with a more transparent and trustworthy research environment.

Cross-sector relationships

The relationship status between publishers and libraries might best be described as complicated. As with many conferences, R2R remained very publisher-heavy in terms of delegates. I believe it is really important to have representation from all stakeholders in decision making spaces. Could R2R become the inclusive platform where a variety of voices can contribute to meaningful dialogue and solutions? This would also help us to step outside the echo chamber, which in turn helps foster innovation and collaboration.

Looking over the garden fence

A theme I found more refreshing theme was the call to step outside our world and look to other industries to see how they have addressed challenges that we are grappling with – a good example was looking to the financial sector for advice on persistent identifiers. Perhaps we don’t need to keep trying to reinvent the wheel, and embarking on some cross-industry collaboration could inspire innovative practices in academia.

The community approach

Community initiatives for example funding models got considerable airtime, with a clear message: if the community isn’t buying in, your initiative might as well be written on sand at low tide. Community-driven initiatives are pivotal in building trust and fostering goodwill – and, if we work together, we can leverage our collective knowledge to develop innovative, meaningful and useful solutions and experience to advance our industry.

The journal-shaped security blanket

Despite all the talk of innovation, it is clear that we still have a fondness for journal-shaped journals. Experimentation is often not celebrated; innovation not always encouraged, as it can be seen as a threat and derided.

The whole academic community has a bit of a security blanket issue with traditional formats: “Here’s my groundbreaking research that could transform humanity, but please make sure it looks exactly like all the other papers on my shelf.”

Experimentation, iteration and having the courage to fail are as important in the research ecosystem as anywhere else, and we should all be encouraging a cultural shift toward celebrating innovation and viewing failure as part of the learning process.

The accountability hot potato

Nobody appears to wants to take the lead in accountability when it comes to research integrity; there’s too much reputational and revenue risk, and little incentive. The retraction process was singled out as particularly needing an overhaul. Currently, authors rarely retract their own papers, and publishers aren’t incentivised to issue retractions that might damage reputation and revenue. 

Of course, trust and integrity are important across the board and come with challenges but every challenge has a solution if someone is willing to lead the charge for greater transparency in practices like retractions, peer review, and institutional accountability – perhaps by industry regulations, standardised trust markers, and cross-organisational information sharing.

Silos everywhere

The conference highlighted once again how the academic ecosystem is fragmented into silos that rarely talk to each other, and often reinvent the wheel to create a perceived competitor advantage rather than a customer-focussed approach. Maybe now is the time to look at how we connect the dots – not only would this make for better experiences all round, but it would help in tackling the volume of waste in the system. 

Taking a pragmatic approach to progress

I took away a refreshing dose of realism acting with pragmatism. Progress is not always linear; we should support an environment where experimentation and innovation are encouraged, welcomed and where learnings are shared. Iteration through innovation is hugely valuable, even when it may not immediately succeed – and could extend across solutions for reducing inefficiencies or rethinking traditional organisational structures. A brave stance that deserves recognition.

Who is the customer again?

Customer centricity is something close to my heart, and was a golden thread running throughout the conference. That being said, it isn’t always clear who the customer we are referring to is – is it the researcher? The reader? The library? The funder? 

There was agreement that we should be putting CX and UX at the heart of what we do and really listening to what’s needed and meeting customers where they are for consistent and connected experiences. 

Having more researchers and information professionals representing themselves would be a positive move.

Conclusion: less stick, more communication. And more researchers!

As we navigate the complex world of academic publishing, R2R 25 reminds us that perhaps we need fewer sticks, fewer carrots, and more honest conversations. It feels like it’s time to move forward with education, transparency, and community at the core.

And maybe, just maybe, we can stop beating that poor donkey with the carrot.

Hannah Baldwin is Director of Marketing Success at The International Bunch

Do you want to read more content like this? SUBSCRIBE to the Research Information Newsline!