In the final of our series to celebrate Women’s History Month, we look at the remarkable career of Elsie Widdowson. Born in 1906, she was one of the first women to graduate from Imperial College, London, and went on to earn her first PhD from there. Following an early research interest in plants, she became an expert in human diets, going on to provide invaluable input into the UK’s rationing project after World War II.
In this short series of blogs, Digital Science is using modern tools to assess three women and their research legacies to amplify their achievements during Women’s History Month. We saw earlier this month the major contributions made by Marie Maynard Daly and Rita Levi-Montalcini, and in the final part we review the impact made by Dr Elsie Widdowson in her long career.
The first remarkable thing to note about Dr Widdowson is the change in disciplines she covered in her early work. At first she was interested in plants, and her first PhD at Imperial College involved long-term experimentation on carbohydrates in apples. But following that she switched from plants to humans, and in particular the biochemistry of our bodies. Firstly she looked at the functioning of kidneys, and then moved on to the relatively new field of dietetics. It appears that these changes were in part due to difficulties in securing a long-term position in what would have been a male-dominated era.
The second thing to note here is that, working with co-researcher Dr Robert McCance, their publications on nutrition quickly became the seminal text for those studying the area in the post-war period. Recognising her expertise, she helped the UK government formulate a plan to increase vitamin intake into people’s diets which were restricted due to rationing. Much of her work focused on the health of the fetus and babies according to the milk they drank, and this work was not just restricted to people. Gestation and growth patterns and how they were related to nutrition were studied in everything from elephants to blackbirds to pigs. However, the relative health of people in that period will still be felt today by those still living and the families they were able to bring up.
The third impressive aspect of her career is not only her productivity over such a long period, but the number of major contributions across so many different fields. Recently the Dimensions database was upgraded to include the updated Fields of Research (FoR) categorisations used in Australia and New Zealand. In the course of her career, Dr Widdowson published 159 articles – 63 of them with her long-time collaborator Dr McCance – and around two thirds of these were in her core area of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (see chart). One might expect most authors to then have a few papers here and there in adjacent FoRs, but Dr Widdowson has 40 papers in Agricultural, Veterinary and Food Science, 32 in Health Sciences and seven in Environmental Sciences. She also has a handful of papers in other areas, but they are in no way adjacent, publishing articles in areas such as Engineering and History, Heritage and Archaeology.
Field of Research (FoR) codes and the number of publications by Dr Elsie Widdowson, demonstrating the wide range of fields in which she published. Source: Dimensions.
Later in her career, Dr Widdowson retired from work in one lab only to take up a position at another lab in Cambridge to further her research career. It is perhaps fitting that when she published her final article – some 64 years after her first when she was well into her 90s – it was a dedication to her co-author Dr McCance after he died following a similarly long and distinguished career.
Simon Linacre
About the Author
Simon Linacre, Head of Content, Brand & Press | Digital Science
Simon has 20 years’ experience in scholarly communications. He has lectured and published on the topics of bibliometrics, publication ethics and research impact, and has recently authored a book on predatory publishing. Simon is also a COPE Trustee and ALPSP tutor, and holds Masters degrees in Philosophy and International Business.
Over the last few years, many things were put on hold only to come back bigger and better; the Academy Awards, COP26, and of course Liverpool FC’s eventual triumph over the rest of the Premier League. However, none have been so hotly anticipated as #FuturePub – Return of the Research Tech Innovation Social!
We’re really excited to announce that #FuturePub is BACK! We’ll be at the Royal Institution (the Ri to its friends) on May the 4th (be with you) for everything you know and love and SO MUCH MORE.
Don’t worry, the sky isn’t really spinning – you’re just experiencing the excitement of #FuturePub!
Join us for food, drinks, lightning talks from cutting-edge innovators in research tech, networking with a bunch of like-minded people, and even explore the historic building that is hosting us.
Hosted by Digital Science, the evenings are designed to be fun and informal – we aim to give opportunities to those working on new ideas and innovations a chance to present and get feedback on their ideas. There’s also free food!
In case you’re wondering how it all works, here’s a breakdown of how the night will look:
Doors will open at 6:00 pm when you can grab some food, a drink, and meet fellow attendees. You can also explore the historic home of science communication and innovation with a walk through the Faraday Museum at the Ri.
At around 6:30 pm there will be some quick-fire lightning talks covering a range of new and exciting developments in research technology. These will fit into an hour, to keep the evening fast-paced and fun!
The rest of the evening is then open for discussions and conversations over drinks and any remaining food – we expect a great mixture of attendees from the research, publishing and start-up communities.
From about 9:00 pm those who would like to continue conversations can start to wander over to the King’s Head pub down the road where we’ve reserved a space.
#FuturePub event in 2019.
We’ll have a great selection of speakers lined up and will be announcing the first two shortly, with further announcements as we approach the event. Register now to be the first to hear the speaker announcements as they go out!
We also still have a couple of speaking slots left, so if you’d like to speak at this event (or one in the future), please register your interest via this form.
And if you just want to turn up and enjoy the event, sign up here! Tickets are FREE, but limited, so grab yours NOW. We can’t wait to see you at #FuturePub!
WHEN: Thursday, May the 4th, 2023 from 6:00 pm to 9:30 pm (BST)
WHERE: The Royal Institution of Great Britain, 21 Albemarle St, London W1S 4BS
Doors open at 6:00 pm and the talks will kick off at 6:30 pm. Space at the venue is limited, so please register for your free tickets now to reserve your place!
About the Author
Suze Kundu is Director of Researcher and Community Engagement at Digital Science.
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).
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.
Figure 1: Effect of climatic changes on infectious diseases.8
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?
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.
Figure 2: Word cloud illustrating the strength of association of research that includes both climate change and zoonotic (infectious) diseases and their variants.
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: Publications on climate change and zoonotic diseases, and their variants that have been linked to both SDG3 and SDG13 using Dimensions’ SDG classification system
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 4: 4a) One in 40 publications from researchers in high-income countries have been co-authored with researchers from a low-income country; 4b) Two in three publications from researchers in low-income countries have been co-authored with researchers from a high-income country.
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).
2010-2022
Number and percentage of authors publishing climate change and infectious (zoonotic) diseases research
Number of authors publishing research outputs associated with SDG13
Number of authors publishing research outputs associated with SDG3
Total number of authors publishing in each geographic income region
Global South
Low-income countries
52 (0.11%)
2,818 (6.22%)
26,649 (58.85%)
45,285 (100%)
Lower-middle-income countries
468 (0.03%)
85,931 (6.07%)
409,355 (28.93%)
1,415,019 (100%)
Global North
High-income countries
618 (0.01%)
365,917 (4.73%)
2,337,971 (30.22%)
7,736,160 (100%)
Upper-middle-income countries
2,419 (0.06%)
194,187 (4.56%)
850,954 (19.97%)
4,260,966 (100%)
Table 1: Number and proportion of authors by geographic income region publishing research on climate change and infectious (zoonotic) diseases, and SDG3 and SDG13
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: Research outputs by year of publication pre- and post-SDG time period.
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
Figure 6a – Number of publications and corresponding citation counts that include authors in low- and low -medium income countries.
Figure 6b Number of publications and corresponding citation counts that include authors in high- and high-medium income countries.
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
Figure 7: Breakdown of Country groupings by income and type of funding organisation revealed by Dimensions.
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
Figure 8: Top 12 publishers of policy documents citing research on climate change and zoonotic diseases (based on our Dimensions search criteria – see above in “Search strategies”).
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.
About Dimensions
Part of Digital Science, Dimensions is a modern, innovative, linked research data infrastructure and tool, re-imagining discovery and access to research: grants, publications, citations, clinical trials, patents and policy documents in one place. www.dimensions.ai
About the Authors
Dr Briony Fane, Director, Researcher Engagement, Data | Digital Science
Dr Briony Fane gained a PhD from City, University of London, and has worked both as a funded researcher and a research manager in the university sector. Briony plays a major role in investigating and contextualising data for clients and stakeholders. She identifies and documents her findings, trends and insights through the curation of customised in-depth reports. Briony has extensive knowledge of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and regularly publishes blogs on the subject, exploring and contextualising data from Dimensions.
Ann Campbell, Product Technical Specialist | Dimensions
Ann Campbell (MPhil) joined Digital Science after almost 16 years working in the university sector where she successfully implemented several information systems used across the student and research lifecycle. Ann has a broad knowledge of data integration and analysis, primarily in the areas of academic research and impact, research assessment, diversity and inclusion and the UN SDGs. With extensive expertise in academic related data, she has played a lead role in data preparation for a number of REF assessments, diversity and inclusion charters and mandatory submissions.
Dr Juergen Wastl, Director of Academic Relations and Consultancy | Digital Science
Dr Juergen Wastl leads on supporting research institutions, funders, governments and other institutions with research capabilities to make better use of data to inform their strategies and decisions. Juergen headed the team that developed the Sustainable Development Goals classification for Dimensions and spearheads investigations and innovative analysis based on the UN SDGs. He is also Associate Director at the Research on Research Institute (RoRI) and he has considerable experience in all matters associated with research evaluation, assessment and interoperability.
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.
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
“There’s our Jimmy,” said an excited Southern woman at a rest stop heading to Plains, Georgia, from Atlanta.
I thought it was odd to think of former US President Jimmy Carter as ours. No one should be possessed by another. Yet, the phrase stuck with me through the past four years. This woman and I were part of a group involved with the Carter Center as donors or volunteers, and we were heading for a weekend in Plains with Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter (and other Carter family members and a few US Secret Service agents).
I do not remember his presidency, but I remember my Texan family’s resentment towards him. And the jokes at his expense, especially the ones about peanuts. But what I know after being more aware of the Carter Center is his commitment to global health and peace that transformed millions of lives worldwide. And he and Rosalynn have touched my heart and helped me find my due North.
A profoundly religious man, President Jimmy Carter’s preaching was through practice by improving human life. The Carter Center has accomplished so much due to its laser focus on peace and health. His brief four-year presidency offered the springboard to provide a better life for millions. [see below: A lifetime of impacts.]
One of the Center’s initiatives helped reduce the number of Guinea worm cases from about 3.5 million in 1986 to just 13 in 2022. Guinea worm is a parasite that causes debilitating effects when it infects a person, grows within the abdomen then emerges from the skin. Preventing the suffering of millions started with the combination of sharp focus and achievable goals – in this case neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). [see below: Guinea worm not infecting millions thanks to the Carter Center.]
In Ghana, Carter Center volunteer Adams Bawa dressing the Guinea worm wound of a six-year-old child, as former US President Jimmy Carter tries to comfort her. Photo courtesy of the Carter Center.
Other crucial factors for success have been to build trust with communities and find sustainable solutions. The Center’s staff and volunteers hail from across the globe, but most significantly, from the countries affected by the NTDs. And solutions through community engagement have made filtering available water sources common and kept people and animals with emerging worms away from open bodies of water. [see below: Carter Center research exemplifies global collaborations.]
Drawn to the Carter Center for its dedication to eliminating disease, I came to respect its work, its people, and its volunteers. And to continuously be amazed by President Jimmy Carter.
One fond memory is of a smiling Jimmy Carter speaking in 2018 at the ‘Weekend at the Carter Center’. At some point, he asked the audience of a few hundred people sitting in the Atlanta auditorium: When were (US) women given the right to vote? The audience members willing to speak would fumble around the 1920s for the date. Carter, not smiling, would respond with a resounding ‘NO.’ Quiet from the audience. “1965”, he belted, “with the Voting Rights Act – when all women had the right to vote.” We learned the lesson.
Former US President Jimmy Carter speaking at a Carter Center event. Photo by Leslie McIntosh.
Maybe he lacked the charisma to woo enough US voters to secure a second presidential term. Yet the single-term presidency opened doors to opportunities for positive change. He leveraged the gift selflessly, serving the world population his entire life – tirelessly working for all people, even the ones who did not like or respect him. His contribution to us was to build something that could outlast him. “Waging peace. Fighting disease. Building hope.”
Many articles on President Carter will illuminate his life in the coming weeks and months. But monumental events offer a time to pause and reflect. So I have seized the moment to celebrate an admirable life.
If contemporary writing is the first draft of history, here is a small contribution.
Because this history is his, mine, and ours. Our Jimmy.
A lifetime of impacts
Leslie McIntosh, Liz Smee, Anthony Dona, Shane Jackson, Briony Fane
President Carter leveraged his one term as the ‘most powerful person in the world’ as the US President to have a lifetime of impacts. This is one glimpse into those from the perspective of publications by at least one author at the Carter Center.
Carter Center research exemplifies global collaborations
Since 1988, researchers from the Carter Center have accumulated over 450 research publications. The Carter Center developed an international collaborative network finding solutions with people and countries. Unsurprisingly, over 70% of these publications include researchers across a number of different countries. While we would expect most of the publications to hail from the United States, the Center’s deep commitment to working within local communities across the globe is reflected in their collaboration network including Ethiopia, UK, and Nigeria.
Figure 2: Academic publications by authors at the Carter Center 1986-2022. Source: Dimensions.
Carter Center publications and citations by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
The United Nations adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals to provide “a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future”. Given the focus of the Carter Center, it is unsurprising to find the vast majority of their publications associated with SDGs. The table above reveals that out of a total of 468 research outputs published by Carter Center researchers from 1986-2022, 425 (91%) are associated with 11 of the SDGs, most notably SDG3 – Good Health and Well-being.
Guinea worm not infecting millions thanks to the Carter Center
The World Health Organization (WHO) recognised the need to focus on Guinea worm disease (dracunculiasis) in 1981. The Carter Center partnered with the WHO and other organisations since 1986 working to eradicate Guinea worm. At first, it appears there are a growing number of cases, however, this is due to counting. Setting an audacious goal of eradicating a disease starts with determining who and how many are affected. By 2021, only 15 cases were counted. Read more at the WHO or Carter Center on Guinea worm eradication.
Figure 3: Changes in Guinea Worm cases from 1980 to 2021. Guinea worm cases declined from a significant problem (darker red) in the 1980s to reduced cases (lighter red) to eradication (red to grey). Source data from World Health Organization Dracunliasis eradication portal. Data animated using R.
Carter Center publications influence policies
From their relatively small number of publications, the Carter Center punches above its weight, with 131 publications being cited in 149 publically available policies. The majority of the policies focus on tropical diseases and inform WHO guidelines from the overall topic of neglected tropical diseases to a subset within NTDs, such as treating onchocerciasis. Given the co-focus on peace initiatives, publications surrounding elections and governing also influenced policies, such as with the 2012 Ghana election. The Center’s holistic focus to build hope through communities also comes through in policies fostering community engagement. The Carter Center goals transported ideas to work with outcomes communicated through scholarly publications then into policies. ‘Waging peace. Fighting disease. Building hope.‘ has never been just a tagline.
Figure 4: Carter Center publications cited in policies 1991-2021. Source: Dimensions.
Dr Leslie McIntosh
About the Author
Dr Leslie McIntosh, Vice President, Research Integrity | Digital Science
Dr McIntosh is founder and CEO of Ripeta, a company formed to improve scientific research quality and reproducibility. Part of Digital Science, Ripeta leads efforts in automating quality checks of research manuscripts. Academic turned entrepreneur, Dr McIntosh served as the executive director for the Research Data Alliance (RDA) – US region and as the Director of the Center for Biomedical Informatics at Washington University School in St. Louis. Over the past years, she has dedicated her work to improving science. She has been a member of the Carter Center since 2008.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the work from Digital Science experts on Dimensions data (Liz Smee, Anthony Dona, Simon Porter), data visualization (Shane Jackson), and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Briony Fane).
Daniel Hook, one of the co-founders of Symplectic and now CEO of Digital Science, reflects on the past 20 years of growth and change at Symplectic – and what makes it such a special partner within the research community.
Twenty years is a long time in tech but a short time in the world of research. There are other, perhaps more appropriate measures by which to measure the age of Symplectic: in UK terms, Symplectic is ‘three REFs’ old, from a New Zealand perspective it is just two PBRFs, and in an Australian context it is four (and a bit) ERAs old. From a software development perspective, Symplectic is six major versions old. From a client perspective, it is more than 120 installations old. From a personal perspective, it is two CEOs old – indeed, around Christmas this year, I will become the second-longest serving CEO of Symplectic, having moved into the Digital Science leadership team in 2015 and handed the reins of Symplectic over into the capable hands of Jonathan Breeze.
As with almost any 20-year-old, this one, which was started by four friends who happened to share an office while doing their PhDs, has grown so as to be almost completely unrecognisable. And yet, there are things that were important to us when we founded the company 20 years ago that remain at the heart of what we do now. I like to think that there are two guiding principles in what Symplectic does: firstly, whatever we do, we do it collaboratively; secondly, we want to save people time. There are other things that flow from this: bringing an academic perspective; helping people to make better decisions; ensuring that data are re-used; making sure that we preserve key aspects of choice in how users of Elements are able to work with the data that it contains; interoperability between systems and so on. At the core each of these things is an expression of those two guiding principles.
Setting collaboration at the centre of Symplectic’s world has created a very special ethos in the company, as both those inside the company and those who work with Symplectic’s team will attest. Symplectic’s story is not just about those of us who founded the company or those of us who have been part of the team – it is a story that is shared with Symplectic’s wider community. There are simply too many people to name who have played pivotal roles in making Symplectic the company that it is today. I know this because, in preparation for this blog, I tried to write such a list and found myself with more than 50 names of people simply from my time as CEO in the first ten years of Symplectic. And, that list specifically did not include the many colleagues and friends who were actually part the Symplectic team itself over that period. I can only imagine that Jonathan Breeze, my successor, has a list at least as long as the company has expanded significantly under his tenure. All these contributors have made Symplectic what it is today.
Symplectic enjoys a special level of collaboration with its clients, partners, friends, and colleagues. So many over the years have taken a long view – not solely focusing on their own project or installation but giving their time and knowledge generously. This has not only created a company and a piece of software, but also a shared store of deep domain knowledge. Every relationship has gone toward ‘paying it forward’ so that the broader Symplectic community benefits from the innovations and ideas of each participant. When once, in the early phase of Symplectic’s development around 2008, a perceptive UK-based client observed, “You’re really just centralising development funding from many universities so that you can give us a great product and keep it moving forward in a way that we can afford”, they were not wrong.
Our second focus of saving people time sits as a key part of this collaborative relationship. In that regard, Symplectic has moved from serving a single institution in 2003 to being fortunate enough to collaborate with institutions around the world to help them save time for their researchers.
Symplectic’s work is trusted around the world, saving time every day for more than 500,000 academics and administrators in 18 countries. The clients of Symplectic hold more than 8.8m distinct publications sourced from different data sources, saving academic and administrative time every time an article is added to their Symplectic Elements system, full text is deposited, or data is reused in other systems to inform decisions, help annual reviews or advertise the expertise of colleagues to potential partners around the world. With the help of Dimensions, I estimate that:
Just over 7% of global annual output is recorded by organisations in a Symplectic Elements system in an automated way that minimises the time to rekey research metadata records.
23% of global green open access articles are associated with at least one Symplectic Elements instance, saving time for academics to deposit their work into institutional repositories.
17.5% of global citations land on articles stored in Symplectic Elements instances, while 15.5% of Nature papers are captured in Elements instances.
Approximately 64% of articles associated with Symplectic’s clients have an Altmetric mention (compared to a global average of 27%).
72.5% of New Zealand’s research article output is captured in a Symplectic Elements system, as well as 74% of funder-acknowledging publications, and almost 81% of New Zealand’s University-produced research.
It has been an honour to work with the Symplectic team over the last 20 years. To see their progress, their dedication, and their spirit. As you see, they have carved out a unique path and make a real impact in the world with the people that they support. Here’s to the next 20!
And, of course, to borrow a phrase… Vive la Symplectic!
This post was originally published on the Symplectic website here.
Daniel Hook is CEO of Digital Science, co-founder of Symplectic, a research information management provider, and of the Research on Research Institute (RoRI). A theoretical physicist by training, he continues to do research in his spare time, with visiting positions at Imperial College London and Washington University in St Louis.
For many researchers, the data behind their work often only tells half the story. This is the case with Marie Maynard Daly, a trailblazer in so many different ways, and the subject in the first of our March series to celebrate Women’s History Month.
Left-wing historian Eric Hobsbawm once said that, “History is being invented in vast quantities.” Indeed, one need only look at the groaning History section in any good bookshop to realise there’s an almost infinite number of perspectives and realisations of every facet of human history. As we celebrate Women’s History Month in 2023, it is perhaps time we took the opportunity to utilise new technology in trying to understand more about those who led the way for women scientists of today.
In this series of blogs we look at three women and their research legacy to understand what they achieved – and continue to achieve – through their research, as well as fill in the gaps around their lives and the challenges they had to overcome. Later this month we will look at Rita Levi-Montalcini and Elsie Widdowson, but first we will turn our attention to perhaps the most important woman of colour in science in the 20th Century, Marie Maynard Daly.
Marie Daly was born in New York and attended a local college during the Second World War and then completed her Master’s degree in just a year. She then went on to record a staggering number of firsts for black woman scientists:
Marie was the first African American woman to gain a PhD in chemistry in the US
The first African American to be awarded a PhD from Columbia University
She was one of the scientists who helped discover the link between cholesterol and clogged arteries
Early in her career, Dr Daly won a highly prestigious grant from the American Cancer Society that enabled her to work at the Rockefeller Institute of Medicine, which is where she met and started working with Alfred Mirsky. She went on to co-author a number of her articles with him, and was involved in research on the composition of the cell nucleus which was acknowledged by James Watson and Francis Crick in their 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine speech.
Understanding the influence of someone’s research from over half a century ago can be difficult. However, by using Dimensions and Altmetric we can get a sense of how research from the past lives on in research in the here and now.
According to Dimensions, Marie Daly authored at least 10 papers over her career, which have been cited over 500 times in total. Her most cited paper – ‘Synthesis of Protein in the Pancreas’(1953) – has been cited 145 times, however none of these have appeared recently. If, however, we search Dimensions for mentions of Marie Daly, we see that there have been almost 100 articles about her garnering over 1,000 citations, with a large spike in 2021 – such as this article in 2021 recognising Dr Daly’s contribution.
Dimensions and Altmetric badges for articles recognising Marie Maynard Daly’s contribution to research.
Altmetric can allow us to look more broadly at the context and impact of her research. According to the Altmetric tool, her work still garners mentions across a range of online channels, from Twitter to blogs and Wikipedia pages. Like many trailblazers, it is only years later that we can appreciate the importance of their work, and understand their struggles – Alfred Mirsky, who Marie worked with for many years, published 90 articles with over 10,000 citations to date. How much more recognition could Marie and other pioneers have gained had they been working on a level playing field? At least their struggle to overcome inequalities can be appreciated now, and celebrated during events such as Women’s History Month.
Simon Linacre
About the Author
Simon Linacre, Head of Content, Brand & Press | Digital Science
Simon has 20 years’ experience in scholarly communications. He has lectured and published on the topics of bibliometrics, publication ethics and research impact, and has recently authored a book on predatory publishing. Simon is also a COPE Trustee and ALPSP tutor, and holds Masters degrees in Philosophy and International Business.
.png)
