The Story of the Global Scientific Workforce: An Empirical Review of Nature’s Top Stories in the Last Two Years and the Future of Open Access Research

The past 12 months have been a pivotal time for science. While graduate students and junior scientists demanded higher salaries and better working conditions, scientific careers and collaborations were strained by economic uncertainty, Russia’s war on Ukraine, tensions between the United States and China, and the lingering impacts of Brexit. Changes in the landscape of academic publishing include the growth of open access and new approaches to data availability. Through it all, scientists moved forward with their research and their careers in industry, academia and elsewhere. Here’s a rundown of some of Nature’s top stories about the global scientific workforce in a tumultuous year.

The EU has poor conditions for early in their academic careers. Almost 50,000 students across the University of California’s ten campuses went on strike last year, demanding fair compensation, health-care and childcare subsidies — part of a broader push towards student unionization in the United States in response to poor working conditions. A survey published last year1 found that only 57% of 500 early-career scientists in Australia reported being satisfied with their job, echoing the findings of a handful of studies done in other countries. Around the world, the loss of junior or early-career investigators is happening. “It may be really bad here, but it’s not just Europe.”

Science-career paths are clearly taking some noteworthy turns. A study done in March of this year revealed that the opportunities to become a principal investigator have dwindled over the past two decades. Against that backdrop, a growing number of PhD recipients are forgoing postdoctoral positions, leaving PIs to scramble for postdoc talent.

In 2016 the Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied sciences took a broad view of science in a document named Onderzoek met Impact. The report outlined ten areas of society that university research should affect, including health and vitality, education and talent development, societal resilience, sustainable transportation, sustainable agriculture and responsible business. The document underscored the NAUAS interest in proving the value of research, however, it did not include a methodology for tracking impact.

Most researchers who receive funds from the National Institute of Health will have to make their data public by the year 2023, following an announcement in February. The journal Science will allow authors’ near-Final versions of their paper in a repository of their choice without fees or paywalls.

In August, Crossref, a non-profit organization that registers DOIs, or digital object identifiers, for many academic publications worldwide, announced that the reference lists of the more than 60 million articles in its database would be open and freely available to the public, a move hailed by advocates of open access. The president of the United States announced that any federal funding of research would be made freely available to the public.

Over the year, many developments have highlighted issues in the publishing field. The global south researchers have been under-represented in open-access journals because of publication fees. One in four researchers who were financially supported by pharmaceutical companies failed to note the connection when submitting manuscripts, as per a March study. Questions about image integrity swirled around a scientist at the University, eventually leading to 17 corrected or withdrawn editorial notes of concern.

In a move to protect researchers from scams, Retraction Watch, a blog dedicated to issues of scientific integrity, created a database of fake journal sites.

Scientific Progress and Diversity in Australia During the 2023-2020 Biomedical and Humanities Research Breakdown, and an Outcome from the UK

Efforts to improve diversity and inclusion in science were two of the highlights of the year. Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, one of the country’s leading research funding organizations, announced that, starting in 2023, it will award half of its grants for mid-career and senior researchers — fixed at Aus$400,000 (US$252,000) each year for five years — to women or non-binary applicants. Also in Australia, philanthropic organization the Snow Medical Research Foundation ruled to exclude researchers from the University of Melbourne from consideration for the organization’s prestigious fellowships for one year, after the university released a photo of six white men receiving honorary degrees. And, Wellcome, a UK biomedical funding charity, acknowledged in a report that some of its own actions and funding decisions over the years have perpetuated systemic racism in science.

And a report by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that men outnumber women by more than 2 to 1 in US federal science jobs (see go.nature.com/3pkppv9).

The number of scientists with US and Chinese affiliations is falling, due to the economic tensions between the two countries. At a conference in South Africa, African researchers called for more inclusion of researchers from low- and middle-income countries in global collaborations.

Many researchers in the UK lost access to grants from Europe due to the effect of the UK leaving the EU. Some researchers felt they had to leave the country to keep their funding after UKRI replaced lost grants. Overall, the lingering complications of the United Kingdom’s departure from the EU left researchers feeling beleaguered and short of patience.

President Biden attempted to support science through ambitious budget plans and the formation of a federal body in the United States to protect scientists from political interference. In another move to prevent political meddling, researchers in Australia took steps to bar the prime minister from vetoing any grants that have been approved by scientific committees.

The US Supreme Court decision in July to remove the right to abortion disturbed scientists because it made them question the implications for public health. Some people called for a boycott of conferences in states that have laws against abortion.

Despite efforts over the years to address bullying in science, the problem remains. A nationwide survey of Swedish scientists found worrying levels of bullying in the country. Eighteen per cent of respondents to Nature’s 2022 survey of graduate students reported experiences of bullying. 26% of them said they were free to speak about the experience without fearing repercussions.

Worldwide, much of the abuse targeted at scientists happens online, but social-media platforms aren’t doing much to shield researchers from attack. At a time when COVID-19 denial is on, high-profile scientists working on the virus are prone to online attacks.

Efforts by governments and funding bodies over the past decade to better understand their return on investment in research have helped to lay the groundwork for a fuller appreciation of impact. The quality of research contributions by UK universities is measured through a score for impact, which the UK research excellence framework defines as any effect on or benefit to services or economy. It’s a step beyond its predecessor, the Research Assessment Exercise, which periodically assessed UK research from 1986 to 2008 but did not look separately at societal impact. For the 2021 REF, expert panels considered nearly 6,800 impact case studies (most are available in a searchable database; see go.nature.com/3y6rs), documents put together by university departments that attempt to explain the reach of their research beyond academia. The Crisis Resolution Team Optimisation and Relapse Prevention programme at University College London was designed to provide evidence based guidance to mental-health professionals responding to people in acute crisis. The programme changed national and international policy and practice in mental healthcare crisis care, which resulted in benefits for patients and cost savings for the UK health service, according to a case study.

In theory, it should be possible to systematically track connections between research and policy, including government policies and clinical guidelines, says Martin Szomszor, a freelance data scientist based in London. Szomszor co-wrote a November 2022 paper1 investigating a database of policy documents that had been collected from governments, think tanks, intergovernmental organizations and charities. As Szomszor explains, a citation in a policy document can be more meaningful than a citation in a highly read journal. “It’s an important way to show that research actually changed behaviour,” he says.

In a report published in 2022, the Steering Research and Innovation for Global Goals showed that research is an important part of the commitment universities and researchers have made to theSDG. More than 80% of academic publications are not aligned with the goals of the UN. The report shows that research done in high- or middle-income countries tends to not include any links to the sustainable development goals, while research done in low-income countries tends to have more of a connection to the goals. It concludes that “major investment is also needed to gather data about knowledge and innovation investment and production across all contexts and sectors”.

It is possible for science to transform the planet by tackling environmental crises like climate change, and improving the well-being of poorer communities. The UN’s 17 targets that address the biggest global challenges are often being used to measure the impact of them.

Alternative metrics need to be refined and validated if they are ever going to be a reliable basis for funding decisions, says Bornmann, who adds that it is “a bad situation” if such metrics are being used even if “it’s not clear whether they are valid”. He says that the metrics need to be researched for a long time before they can be used in an evaluation.

Donelan was appointed to the cabinet-level department of science. But there has been worry about the Go-it-alone rhetoric.

Building research isn’t like heating an oven ready microwave meal for any purpose, regardless of the purpose. Results are not a matter of plucking something off the shelf, pressing some buttons and getting an outcome in record time.

Any such collaborations are to be welcomed. What logic is there to comparing them to the United Kingdom’s existing science relationships? Multiple collaborative projects will be required if the country is to harness science in the service of society and the economy.

Working Conditions for Senior Scientists in the EU: Insights from a Commission on Neurodegenerative Diseases with the Council of the European Union

The EU said the United Kingdom can participate in the program, but only after there is a resolution to the dispute over trade between the UK and Ireland.

In another rare meeting politicians of the major UK political parties and experts met last week to discuss in detail how to work together with EU partners after Britain leaves the EU. This is welcome, because it suggests that a national consensus on new beginnings with the EU is possible.

In response to a widespread brain drain, the Council of the European Union agreed in May 2021 to prioritize working conditions for junior scientists, who face job insecurity, precarious funding and discrimination, bullying and harassment. Attendees at a policy conference in Europe drafted a manifesto to highlight possible resolutions. That document was released last September and was presented to research commissioner Mariya Gabriel on 10 January.

Gabriel says that the EU needs to work with member states, universities, research organizations and industry to make sure it can continue to recruit and retain researchers.

Patricia González-Rodríguez, a junior faculty member at the University of Seville in Spain who researches Parkinson’s disease, says that, in her experience, many academics are leaving Spain for other nations, particularly the United States. The Spanish government paid for her education, including her PhD. After graduating in 2012, she did a postdoc in Seville, but felt she couldn’t progress further without international experience. So she left for a postdoc at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, studying the role of autophagy in neurodegenerative disease.

She returned to Spain to be near her family and she believes a lot of scientists remain overseas. Even now, in a relatively secure position, González-Rodríguez says she struggles to find funding for her students and staff members, a preoccupation that eats into her lab’s productivity. She notes that she is trying to find a way to keep her laboratory technician employed, who is on a short term contract. “In just a few months, she may not have any job,” González-Rodríguez says.

To assess which institutions will be eligible, Heitor says, the commission will need to draft criteria for evaluating what constitutes a ‘good’ research career for junior scientists, and a group is being formed for this purpose. He also says that any such assessment would probably consider how many early-career researchers an institution has on its staff, the level of research autonomy they have and whether the institution is offering opportunities to ‘at-risk’ scientists, such as those who are fleeing Ukraine.

Towards a co-funding mechanism for the research and innovation funding programme of Horizon Europe: the case of Germany under Berlin’s law on jobs for young people

There will be a 10 million budget with the potential for more investment over the next few years. If the programme proves successful, it will probably be included as a budget item in the next iteration of Horizon Europe — the EU’s research and innovation funding programme — with an operating budget on a par with the €16 billion of the ERC.

To make this financial leap, Heitor says, he’s looking into a co-funding mechanism that would solicit partnerships between the commission and national funding agencies or industry groups. Heitor says that industries should have an interest in funding basic research. Even if researchers aren’t working in industry, companies benefit from the work they do. The companies should dedicate funds to support this work.

Attila Dezsi is an early- career archaeologist who is also the State Office for the Preservation of Monuments in Germany. Berlin attempted to address a lack of opportunities for young people by requiring universities in the city-state to provide pathways to permanent employment. The law backfired, prompting hiring freezes and at least one resignation. “That really harmed the whole situation,” says Dézsi, who chose the freelance route after their PhD owing to the challenges of finding permanent work. “We need to be very thoughtful in what we do next.”