100% Say R2R is Relevant & Valuable

Analysis of the delegate feedback from the 2019 Researcher to Reader Conference shows very high levels of satisfaction with the event, with delegates rating both the sessions and the event very positively.

R2R 2019 Sentiment v02Of the 70+ survey respondents, all but two ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that the Conference was relevant to them professionally and was a valuable use of their time.

Survey Form 50

Just one respondent disagreed that the event was ‘valuable’, but they acknowledged that this was because they only attended one day. And just one respondent strongly disagreed on both ‘value’ and ‘relevance’, although since they also said that they “go every year”, we are confident that this response was an error! (Get in touch if you want to change your response.) If we exclude these two anomalies, 100% of the respondents agreed that event was “relevant to me professionally” and “a valuable use of my time”.

The speaker presentations at the event also received consistently positive results, with most getting an average rating at least 3 out of 4, and all presentations getting at least 2.8, which is outstanding for any conference. Five of the 10 presentations got over 80% favourable ratings.

R2R 2019 Speakers (Rnd)

The Workshops and Panels received more mixed feedback, with the comments showing quite polarised opinions on many of these sessions. But two Workshops managed to achieve 100% positive ratings (Supporting Early-Career Scholarship and Levelling the Playing Field), which was excellent, with the former receiving an outstanding 3.8 average rating.

R2R 2019 WorkshopsThe organisation and venue also rated highly, with the event administration getting 100% positive ratings.  The temperature of the rooms continued to be somewhat concerning , with 20% rating it Poor or Fair, despite careful monitoring and frequent checking of the audience comfort level – we will have to keep working on this.

R2R 2019 Event

Delegate comments were also very positive, with responses that included:

  • Audience interaction was great.
  • Altogether a well-run conference.
  • Excellent, interesting to be so interactive.
  • Good conference, I liked the mix of attendees.
  • Brilliant for networking.
  • A well-organised conference.
  • Interesting conference
  • Really enjoyed the programme, good variety and the workshops well facilitated.
  • Great as always.
  • Really good balance of subjects and speakers.
  • Extremely well run.
  • Passionate speakers; great topics.
  • Excellent facilitators, fun and productive
  • Great timing, layout and stage.
  • Workshop format was good for energy levels.
  • Very collaborative event.
  • Brilliant hearing the perspective of librarians and researchers as well as publishing.
  • Very nice venue.
  • Great workshops. helped fuel the creative process and given me lots to take away.

Overall, the survey results showed very positive feedback for the event, and we also received many useful suggestions for improvements and innovations for 2020.

Mark Carden
14 April 2019


Irfanullah has Scholarly Kitchen Article

IranfunallaA presentation given at last month’s Researcher to Reader Conference, by Dr Haseeb Irfanullah, has been the basis of a guest post, ‘How has Bangladesh’s scholarly communication changed in recent decades?’ at the Scholarly Kitchen blog.

The slides for the R2R presentation (in PDF format) are available on our website, and a video-recording of the presentation is available on our YouTube channel.

Mark Carden
29 March 2019

R2R Tulley Presentation on SK Blog

Tulley Book 33A presentation given at last month’s Researcher to Reader Conference, by Dr Christine Tulley, forms the basis of a guest blog post, ‘Emerging Trends in the Academic Publishing Lifecycle’ at the Scholarly Kitchen today.

The slides for the R2R presentation (in PDF format) are available on our website, and a video-recording of the presentation will be available shortly on our YouTube channel.

Mark Carden
27 March 2019

Dr Danny Kingsley Reports on R2R 2019

The recent Researcher to Reader Conference has been written up by Dr Danny Kingsley (an Advisory Board member) on the University of Cambridge Office of Scholarly Communication Blog: Unlocking Research.

In her comprehensive, and personal, take on the issues raised at the Conference, Dr Kingsley concludes that it is essential that to get researchers, librarians and publishers into the same room to understand one other better, through events like R2R.

The full blog post is available at Unlocking Research.

Mark Carden
7 March 2019

R2R Workshop at Scholarly Kitchen

cropped-r2r-icon-01-hi-png.pngOne of the workshops at the recent Researcher to Reader Conference has been written up by Andrea Powell of Research4Life on the Scholarly Kitchen blog. In the blog post, Powell described the question being addressed during the series of three workshop meetings that took place during the 2019 R2R:

  • How can the global scholarly communications community address economic and infrastructure imbalances that prevent researchers from the Global South from achieving equality?”

and concludes that “The workshops generated a great deal of engagement and ideas, with some highly practical and achievable recommendations for further action. “

The highly interactive workshops that form an integral part of the two-day Researcher to Reader programme are very popular, and it is great to see practical actions following on from the inter-disciplinary conversations that take place.

Visit Scholarly Kitchen to read the full account.

Mark Carden
6 March 2019

R2R Speaker on Cover of Nature

James Evans 03We are excited to announce that Professor James Evans, who will be speaking at the Researcher to Reader Conference, 25-26 February, has been featured on the cover of the latest issue of Nature (Vol 566 No 7744), in relation to his research (with Lingfei Wu and Dashun Wang) into the impact of team size on research outcomes.  The abstract is below.  We look forward to hearing Professor Evans speak about this and other aspects of his work on 26 February.

Although the Conference is only just over a week away, and we are already at 120% of last year’s total delegates, it is not too late to register. As of today we have about 10 spaces left.

Mark Carden
16 February 2019


Cover of Nature2

One of the most universal trends in science and technology today is the growth of large teams in all areas, as solitary researchers and small teams diminish in prevalence. Increases in team size have been attributed to the specialization of scientific activities, improvements in communication technology, or the complexity of modern problems that require interdisciplinary solutions. This shift in team size raises the question of whether and how the character of the science and technology produced by large teams differs from that of small teams. Here we analyse more than 65 million papers, patents and software products that span the period 1954–2014, and demonstrate that across this period smaller teams have tended to disrupt science and technology with new ideas and opportunities, whereas larger teams have tended to develop existing ones. Work from larger teams builds on more-recent and popular developments, and attention to their work comes immediately. By contrast, contributions by smaller teams search more deeply into the past, are viewed as disruptive to science and technology and succeed further into the future—if at all. Observed differences between small and large teams are magnified for higher-impact work, with small teams known for disruptive work and large teams for developing work. Differences in topic and research design account for a small part of the relationship between team size and disruption; most of the effect occurs at the level of the individual, as people move between smaller and larger teams. These results demonstrate that both small and large teams are essential to a flourishing ecology of science and technology, and suggest that, to achieve this, science policies should aim to support a diversity of team sizes.