Smart AI, Smarter Scholarship

How might planned cuts to funding of the US National Science Foundation affect scholarly output? In our last News & Views we analyzed how the headline cuts might apply to relevant activities. This month we examine how journals may be impacted and model some scenarios quantifying the impact on global scholarly output. Background The US National Science Foundation is an independent US federal agency that supports science and engineering across the US and its territories. In its 2024 financial year (FY) 1 , it spent around $9.4 billion, funding approximately 25% of all federally supported research conducted by US colleges and universities. In July we looked at how reported funding cuts and NSF budget cuts proposed by the US Government might affect the NSF’s output of research papers. We found that in the near term the effects would be limited, as the cuts focus on NSF activites that produce low volumes of papers. However, cuts proposed over the coming year may have a more profound effect as they are deep and affect research activities. We have also previously analyzed proposed cuts to funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). We noted how cuts to the world’s largest producer of biomedical research could have a profound effect on publication outputs. So how do cuts to the NSF stack up? The effects on journals As ever, the headlines and averages are unevenly distributed, so we looked at how individual journals might be affected. 

The US Government has planned cuts to funding of the US National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2025 and 2026. Before we can undertake a full analysis of how these cuts might affect publishers, we must unpack some data. This month we put the cuts in context, looking at how the cuts impact research and the scale of NSF output. And we find they may not affect research in the ways the headlines suggest. We will follow up with a future analysis modelling specific scenarios of impacts on publisher submissions. Background The US National Science Foundation is an independent US federal agency that supports science and engineering across the US and its territories. In its 2024 financial year (FY) 1 , it spent around $9.4 billion, funding approximately 25% of all federally supported research conducted by US colleges and universities. In May 2025, the New York Times (NYT) published an article analyzing proposed cuts to NSF funding by the current US Government. The NYT’s analysis suggested a 51% cut in funding from 1 January through 21 May 2025, with a further 56% reduction proposed for next year 2 . We have previously analyzed effects of proposed cuts to funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The proposed cuts to the NSF are deeper, so might they have an even greater negative effect on publication volumes? Understanding what the cuts apply to The 51% cut in 2025 covers 140 days, equivalent to a 20% annualized cut. So could we see the same level of reduction in papers this year? And could this be followed be a 56% drop next year, as the 2026 cuts cover a full year? As with our analysis of the NIH, we need to understand how the changes in funding translate into research activities, and thence into corresponding volumes and timing of publication output. We therefore analyzed the NSF’s own budgetary figures to put the cuts into context. 

This spring, Delta Think collaborated with 27 professional societies and associations to launch a Global Author/Researcher Survey to understand the ripple effect of US government research funding cuts. Our goal was to explore how researchers are navigating a rapidly evolving landscape, especially as US federal funding and policy decisions cast long shadows over the global research community.  More than 13,000 researchers across every major discipline and 135 countries shared their voices through our survey. While the detailed findings are deep and wide-ranging, one thing is clear: the ground is shifting. Uncertainty Is Driving Change in Research Behavior Delta Think deeply analyzed the data by six major disciplines: Health Sciences, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering & Technology, Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities. Nuances vary by each main field, but some factors were universal. US-based researchers are signaling deep concern – and they’re bracing for change. Many anticipate reductions across publishing output, participation in peer review, and conference attendance. For example, 62% of US authors across all disciplines expect to publish fewer articles in the next 1–2 years, citing policy and funding challenges . “My research progress is now in ‘conservative mode’ in case funding is pulled from us with no notice. We cannot plan further out and have lost our trust in the federal government.” Primary Investigator (PI) at a US Academic Medical Center But the concerning news isn’t limited to the US. International researchers indicated their intention to pull away from US-based journals, threatening to reshape the global flow of research. In fact, a full 50% of international authors across all disciplines indicated that it is now important to them to submit their manuscripts to non-US journals. “We're doing everything we can to reduce our connections to the US, including looking for journals to publish in that are not based in the US.” Mid-Career PI, Biological Sciences, Canada Top Concerns: What Keeps Researchers Up at Night? One of the clearest patterns that emerged is the contrast in what researchers view as their most urgent challenges: For US researchers , the top concern is straightforward: elimination of research funding . This fear extends beyond specific grants—it reflects a deep anxiety about career stability, institutional viability, and the future of scientific advancement. For international researchers , the primary worry is academic freedom and collaboration , with many expressing concerns about losing access to US research infrastructure, data, and professional networks if international cooperation is reduced. While these represent the top concerns, the survey results reveal many others by discipline, career stage, and other factors, including specific community details for each of the 27 participating societies and organizations upon which to develop their future strategies. Looking Ahead: Tracking Trends with Fall 2025 Survey This spring’s survey was just the beginning. Delta Think will conduct a follow-up survey in October/November 2025 to track how attitudes and behaviors continue to shift. This next phase will allow us and the participating organizations to move from snapshot to trend — providing deeper insight into the lasting impact of funding and policy uncertainty. Joining in for Survey 2 is NOT limited to Survey 1 participating organizations. All are welcome to participate in this next round and have access to the deep data behind these high-level insights and much more. Turning Ideas into Action The Delta Think team designed this initiative not just to gather data, but also to support our partners across the scholarly ecosystem. By combining rigorous research design with deep industry context, we’re helping publishers, societies, and institutions make informed, strategic decisions in uncertain times. If you're interested in learning more about the findings, discussing how they apply to your organization, or joining the Fall 2025 survey, we’d love to connect. Please email Lori Carlin to start the conversation.

Overview As the extent of proposed cuts to the US Government’s funding of US Federal research becomes apparent, we ask how this might affect scholarly publishers. US bodies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) produce significant volumes of research. A fall in their funding could lead to significant drops in research and may have negative implications for scholarly publishers around the world. Background The NIH is the world’s largest funder of biomedical research. We have previously noted that the NIH accounts for a significant share of papers published. At the time of writing (early June 2025), some notable reports about cuts to NIH funding have emerged: An open letter ( “The Bethesda Declaration” ) dated June 9, 2025, to the current head of the NIH, in which signatories (who are NIH staff) note that: Since January 20, 2025, the NIH has “terminated 2,100 research grants totaling around $9.5 billion and an additional $2.6 billion in contracts through end of April”. An analysis published by the New York Times in early June 2025 of the grants ended or delayed: From the January 20 Inauguration through April 2025, the administration ended 1,389 awards and delayed sending funding to more than 1,000 additional projects. The agency awarded $1.6 billion (20%) less compared with the same period last year. A proposal from the White House dated May 2, 2025, reduces the CDC’s budget by $3.6 billion and the NIH’s total budget by about $18 billion (a cut of almost 40%, according to the NYT ). Analysis from JAMA Network notes that Congress proposed cuts of 43% to NIH, or $20bn per year. “Assuming that some efficiencies are possible … a 40% cut in NIH spending will translate into a smaller change in effective distributions, we can … estimate that a 33% reduction in NIH funding would be associated with a 15.3% reduction in patents associated with new drugs…” Could these cuts to NIH funding have a noticeable effect on publication volumes? To answer this, we need to understand how the changes in funding translate into corresponding publication output. How deep do the cuts go? The first stage of our analysis puts the reports into the context of the parent funding, so we can estimate the best- and worst-case scenarios of the cuts. 

The Society for Scholarly Publishing’s (SSP) 47th Annual Meeting , themed “Reimagining the Future: Scholarly Publishing at the Intersection of Value and Values,” challenged the scholarly community to think beyond the content that we produce and the structures and systems we build—and to focus on how we communicate their purpose and impact . As proud SSP volunteers, Annual Meeting sponsors, and Contributor level supporters of the Generations Fund , Delta Think was honored to support this dynamic event, which continues to elevate the conversation around diversity, integrity, innovation, and sustainability . The opening keynote from marine conservation biologist Dr. David Shiffman set the tone: publishing research is necessary—but not sufficient . To drive change, he argued, we must tell our story , connect with audiences beyond the academy, and make the case for scholarship, science, and research in an increasingly skeptical world. Inspired by that message, here are our team's key reflections from the conference: Engagement and Mentorship: The Power of Community Heather Staines One of my favorite moments was participating in the President’s Early Career Roundtable . These emerging professionals—thoughtful, passionate, and diverse—reminded me that engagement is a two-way street. We’re not just telling our story—we’re empowering others to tell theirs. As SSP President, I’ve had the privilege of contributing to the organization’s new strategic plan, the launch of the EPIC Awards, and the success of the Generations Fund. But nothing compares to the energy and optimism I saw in that room. The future of scholarly publishing is in good hands. Innovation: AI Is Here (and Evolving Fast) Diane Harnish AI has officially graduated from theoretical to practical. We saw publishers showcasing real-life integrations—tools in production, monetization pilots, and governance frameworks taking shape. From my panel on AI and copyright to collaborative case studies across the conference, the narrative has shifted. We're not asking if AI belongs—we're asking how to align it with our mission. Like the keynote’s call to combine research with action, AI’s value will depend on whether we use it to advance transparency, engagement, and ethical progress . Output vs. Outcomes: Data as Storytelling Bonnie Gruber From predictive analytics to workflow tools, data and analytics were everywhere at SSP 2025. But more importantly, we saw them being used to support narratives—about trust, about quality, about community needs. Sessions from Jennifer Regala, Lettie Conrad, and others highlighted the power of metadata, usage metrics, and audience segmentation to help publishers move beyond reporting to driving real-world results . As Dr. Shiffman illustrated through shark science, impact only matters when people understand it. That’s where analytics come in. Impact: From Evidence to Advocacy  Lori Carlin First, Dr. Shiffman’s message about articulating value hit a chord with me, as I’ve been concerned about how we move beyond the ‘four walls’ of scholarly publishing and our own community to ensure the public at large understands the great value and immense importance of research, and why they can TRUST science. Also, I am always personally grateful and humbled by the vast network of friends and colleagues I have managed to build across the industry over the many years I’ve been involved with SSP. I remember back in my work ‘youth’ attending a Frankfurt Book Fair with a colleague who is now a good friend (and whom I won’t call out and embarrass) and being unable to walk 2 feet through Hall 4.2 without stopping to talk to someone he knew. I thought “I hope I reach that level of connection and comfort someday”…and SSP always makes me feel like I have ‘arrived’ in that sense. The number of folks I know as I walk through the meeting is astonishing to me, and I’m always grateful for the many opportunities to make new connections throughout the meeting as well. And then there was the tone, the mood, the vibe in the air this year. Yes, most/many of us are concerned about the current funding landscape and policy changes, and certainly attendees showed and voiced their concern. But there was hope too – a sense of community, we are in this together, and the coming together of largely like minds with like concerns. And not to gripe or just share fears, but to think about solutions and ways to address current challenges; ways to work together to identify opportunities and positive pathways to address change. Finally, there was Heather’s President’s Address during the awards luncheon, which brought much of the room to tears … an apt end to an equally challenging and rewarding year in scholarly publishing. Ideas into Action: How Delta Think Can Help Dr. Shiffman’s keynote was about bridging the gap between knowledge and change. Publishing alone isn’t enough. We must communicate why our work matters, engage audiences inside and outside academia, and ensure that scholarly publishing not only reflects but drives societal progress. At Delta Think, we help publishers do just that— by grounding strategy in data, aligning with values, and building frameworks that support sustainable, evidence-based storytelling. Whether you're navigating AI, open access, research integrity, or the next wave of policy change, we’re here to help you turn insights into action. Let’s shape a stronger, clearer narrative—together. Let’s turn your SSP takeaways into action. 📩 Contact us at info@deltathink.com RESULTS COMING SOON: Researcher/Author Survey + Part II Analysis is nearly complete on the more than 13,000 responses to our Researcher/Author Survey, conducted in partnership with 27 professional societies and organizations. This data will generate systematic, quantitative insights from the market, and the accompanying analysis will support evidence-based strategy development and scenario planning within a rapidly evolving funding landscape and policy framework. Participants will receive detailed findings, but we are looking forward to sharing high-level insights with the wider community along the way. Based on the overwhelming response to this project and the extraordinary and ongoing shifts in US federal policy, we expect to conduct this survey again in the fourth quarter of this year to start to document trends. If you need more information, please don’t hesitate to reach out by emailing us at info@deltathink.com .

After our previous analysis of the effects of inflation on APCs, we received a question about the effects of currency exchange rates. At a time when the dollar’s exchange rate is changing rapidly, what effect might that have for organizations buying services from abroad? Background Each year we survey the list Article Processing Charges (APCs) of more than 30 major and significant publishers. Going back to 2015, the dataset includes more than 20,000 unique titles and 150,000 title per year combinations. We have previously seen how headline prices typically increase each year, but mostly fall in real terms , once inflation is accounted for. After our most recent analysis, we were asked by a US-based institution whether our inflation numbers included currency effects. With the US dollar (USD) having weakened over the last few months, the institution found buying services priced in non-USD currencies to be significantly more expensive by the end of April 2025 compared with the start of the year. We take a snapshot of APCs at the same time each year. To compare like-for-like across our global market, we normalize prices to USD. This practice is commonly used by economists when analyzing global data and happens to be the most commonly used currency in our sample. Many non-US publishers – especially larger ones – offer an option of USD prices alongside their native currencies (and perhaps others). So, we sample USD prices where quoted, which cover on average around 94% of our annual samples of around 15,000 journals. Otherwise, we convert the prices cited in the publisher’s native currency into USD using the average exchange rate the most recent full year available. Effects of changing exchange rates Our analysis of price changes includes the effects of annual changes in exchange rates for the subset of around 6% of non-USD journals in our sample. It also includes any changes made by non-US publishers to their USD prices. However, it does not include the effects of significant and quick changes to exchange rates. Given the volatility in the US dollar over the last few months, we can dig deeper to explore the impact of these changes. And are there winners and losers depending on who’s buying or selling?

Background: Anticipating Change Earlier this year, the Delta Think team began reflecting on what potential decreases in United States federal funding could mean for research and scholarship both nationally and internationally. We knew our industry and clients also shared these uncertainties, so we embarked on an effort to capture market data for a more grounded understanding of trends. With analytics in hand, we could help our community begin to measure the impact of changes in the times to come and make informed decisions and plans. Methods: Transparency and Rigor Delta Think designed a researcher/author survey that explored topics such as potential research and publication output, peer review availability, conference attendance, society support, research concerns and sentiments, and more. Twenty-seven organizations, associations, and societies participated with us across fields in the health sciences, life sciences, physical sciences, engineering & technology, social sciences, and arts & humanities. A unique survey link was distributed to each participating organization who then shared it with their constituents between March 25th and May 4th. This outreach gave us unprecedented and comprehensive access to the scholarly community, enabling immense confidence in the data. The data generated will deliver systematic, quantitative insights from the market, and the accompanying analysis will support evidence-based strategy development and scenario planning within a rapidly evolving funding landscape and policy framework. Results: Initial Demographics Full results and analysis are in process, but we can share an overview of the response counts by segment:  We received 13,246 total responses from 138 countries; 60% of responses were from the US. All fields were well represented with Health Sciences and Life Sciences leading the way with more than 50% of responses. Physical Sciences and Engineering & Technology followed with 35% of responses, and those in the Arts & Humanities and Social Sciences saw close to 15%. Career stage also saw a good balance with about 34% identifying as Grad Students/Residents or in their Early Career, 31% in Mid-Career, and 30% Senior. Respondents worked across many different roles including 33% who selected Professor/Faculty/Educator, 12% who selected Healthcare Provider or Physician/Surgeon, and 10% who selected Researcher/Analyst. Conclusions: Stay Tuned and Sign Up Based on the large number of responses, we have a high degree of confidence in the data, and we know it will provide meaningful, evidence-based, and actionable intelligence not only for the 27 participating organizations, but also for the larger scholarly communications industry. Participants will receive the detailed findings, but we will share high-level insights along the way with the wider community. Based on the overwhelming response to this project and the extraordinary and ongoing shifts in US federal policy, we expect to conduct this survey again in the fourth quarter of this year to start to document trends. Current survey partners as well as new societies, associations, and organizations are encouraged to participate, so please contact us at info@deltathink.com for more information or to ensure you are included. This Author/Researcher Survey is a logical and natural extension of our work. Delta Think consultants specialize in uncovering evidence for our clients, discovering what that evidence means for them, and using the knowledge gained to build customer-driven, actionable business and publishing strategies. Through the expert utilization of innovative and creative market research techniques and analysis, we are committed to doing our part in support of the scholarly communication community, putting our ideas into action. We will also be attending the upcoming SSP Annual Meeting, so please reach out to set up a meeting with one of the team to hear more in Baltimore.

“I had a wonderful teacher about animal behavior.” – Jane Goodall Jane Goodall was renowned for her ability to understand chimpanzees in the wild simply by observing their day-to-day behaviors. Her subjects were her teachers. She immersed herself in their natural environment, which allowed her to gather authentic insights into her subjects’ social structures, tool use, communication, and cultural behaviors. This ethnographic style of research has now been adopted by the business world to gain deeper insights into customer needs, workflows, and challenges. What is Contextual Inquiry? Contextual Inquiry, as it’s frequently called in the commercial world, is a user-centered research method. Like Dr. Goodall in the field in Tanzania, Contextual Inquiry involves observing and interviewing users in their natural environments while they perform routine tasks, allowing market researchers to understand user behaviors, goals, motivations, and pain points in real-world contexts. The methodology is guided by four key principles: Context: Observations and interviews occur in the user’s actual environment. Partnership: Researchers collaborate with users to understand their processes. Interpretation: Insights are shared with users during the interview for clarification. Focus: The interaction is steered toward topics relevant to the research scope. Why Contextual Inquiry? Contextual Inquiry illuminates user behavior and workflows and can be used to inform solutions including product development, processes, and policies. 1. Deep Understanding of User Needs By observing users in their natural environment, contextual inquiry uncovers hidden needs, pain points, and behaviors that users may not articulate in surveys or traditional interviews. This identifies solutions that address real user challenges rather than assumed ones. 2. Authentic Data Collection Unlike lab-based studies or self-reported methods, Contextual Inquiry captures authentic behaviors as they occur. This helps reveal workarounds, unconscious habits, and environmental factors that influence user behavior. 3. User-Centered Design and Focus The method places users at the center, ensuring solutions are tailored to their needs and preferences. 4. Reduced Risk and Costs By identifying real-world user behaviors and challenges, Contextual Inquiry increases the likelihood that resulting solutions, products, processes, and policies meet user needs. 5. Informed Strategy Insights from contextual inquiry help prioritize users’ needs and challenges, identify new opportunities, and ensure alignment of product and strategy roadmaps with market demands. 6. Empathy Building Direct observation helps teams develop empathy for users by experiencing and understanding their challenges firsthand. Use Cases and an Idea Delta Think uses a Contextual Inquiry methodology to apply the principles above in several different types of projects: Understanding specialized work processes and designing complex systems or workflows Exploring new product opportunities Redesigning existing products Informing processes and policies One way Delta Think can use Contextual Inquiry to help publishers is around the use of AI by researchers and authors. For example, before developing any guidelines, it is critical that publishers first understand how these tools are being used. Using Contextual Inquiry to observe how researchers and authors are currently using AI allows you to build policies that address specific use cases and provide meaningful guidelines based on actual behaviors. At Delta Think, we know how powerful a tool Contextual Inquiry can be for creating a user-centered culture grounded in decisions based on real-world insights and observations. We specialize in uncovering evidence for our clients, discovering what that evidence means for them, and using the knowledge gained to build customer-driven products, policies, and actionable business and publishing strategies. Ready to start the conversation? Please reach out today to discuss how our market research expertise, including Contextual Inquiry, can help your organization unlock key insights to support development and growth.

In March 2025, we looked at the latest Article Processing Charges (APCs) . This month we focus on how prices have risen relative to inflation. As APC price increases fall back to trend, what does this mean in real terms? Background Each year we survey the list Article Processing Charges (APCs) of more than 30 major and significant publishers. Going back to 2015, the dataset includes more than 20,000 unique titles and 150,000 title per year combinations. Going into 2025, we saw price increases fall back to long-term trends from their unusually high increases in 2024. Fully OA (“gold”) journal list prices across our sample rose by around 6.5%, compared with a 9.5% increase this time last year. Hybrid list prices rose by an average of 3%, compared with 4.2%. Last year’s price rises were above long term trends, but overall we found they were rising below inflation. How does this hold for this year’s price increases? We again use the global Consumer Price Index (CPI) as our inflation index, as we consider it to represent the most realistic view of our marketplace. Prices exclude zero APCs, so we can see the effects for instances when publishers choose to charge APCs. Are APCs becoming cheaper or more expensive? The chart below shows how increases in all list APCs work out in real terms for both hybrid and fully OA journals.