After explaining the concept of open impact in last issue’s editorial, we learnt about the aims of this publication.
Now, Nick answers some questions regarding the process and how we produce the articles published in Scientia.

I’m a science and medical communications professional with a BSc (Hons) in Anatomy and an MSc in Nutrition and Public Health. My career revolves around communicating clinical data and broader scientific research to drive impact and increase engagement.
In addition to writing articles for Scientia, I work as a Senior Medical Writer to disseminate clinical trial data for patients and healthcare professionals. I’ve worked across a variety of communications and engagement projects, including publications, animations, infographics, plain language summaries, symposia at medical congresses, interviews with subject-matter experts, advisory boards, and workshops.
I enjoy translating complex and technical information into clear, compelling messages tailored to varied stakeholders including academics, industry, physicians, patients, and lay audiences. My passion lies in using effective science communications to support evidence-based decision making (whether at personal or policy level) and improve public health.

The journal article has long been the object that defines academic career trajectories. In this issue, we talk to one of the main disruptors of this status quo.

Rebecca Lawrence is Vice President, Knowledge Translation at Taylor & Francis. She is also the Founding Managing Director of the open research publisher F1000 (now part of Taylor & Francis), and currently serves as Vice-Chair of DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment).

We are all familiar with the term Open Science. Over the past decade, the global research community has made enormous strides towards ensuring that publicly funded research is openly available—that journal articles and data can be accessed without costly paywalls.

But in practice, many journals have struggled to make the business of open access sustainable. It has led to the rise of predatory publishers, created confusion in the marketplace, and often failed to attract widespread uptake from individual researchers. As a result, some revert to selling access to universities on a subscription basis.