Research Consulting’s associate network brings together expertise from across the global research and publishing landscape. In this edition of our Meet the Team series, we’re getting to know Claire Hao, who specialises in scholarly communication, author experience, Open Access and research integrity, with particular expertise in the Greater China region.
How did your relationship with Research Consulting come about, and what kinds of projects do you typically get involved in?
My relationship with Research Consulting started when I connected with the team through an interview shortly after I founded Every Author. Later, we met at London Book Fair and began discussing possible areas of collaboration.
The projects I usually get involved in are related to regional research development, policy changes, scholarly communication, and author experience — particularly how publishers and institutions can better understand the needs of researchers, librarians and policymakers in China and the wider Greater China region.
In practice, the collaboration is very thoughtful and collegial. I have worked with different colleagues across Research Consulting, and I really appreciate the working culture. I have learned a lot from the team, especially their international perspective on scholarly communication, while I bring local context and practical understanding of the research and publishing landscape in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao.
Can you give an example of a recent project or piece of work that stands out as particularly interesting or meaningful — and why?
Alongside my work with Research Consulting, I offer publishing training and research literacy education through my company, Every Author. One recent area of work that feels particularly meaningful is our engagement with universities in Hong Kong to support early-career researchers. This year, we launched the “Every Author First Publication Scholarship”, which aims to recognise and encourage students and early-career researchers who are taking the important step of publishing their first academic work.
I have also been invited to speak at the Scholarly Publishing Seminar 2026: Navigating Academic Publishing Success, organised by Hong Kong Baptist University Library and the Graduate School on 28 May. I find the event meaningful because it brings publishing knowledge directly to students through university and library communities. I appreciate that HKBU places strong emphasis on students’ research development, not only as an academic outcome but as part of the broader student learning experience. It also reflects something I really value – the solidarity between publishers, libraries, universities, and research support professionals in helping new researchers build confidence and participate more fully in scholarly communication.
You’ve built a career at the intersection of scholarly communication, Open Access and research integrity. What drew you to this space, and how has your work evolved over time?
Over time, my work has evolved from supporting publishing operations and rights-related work into a broader focus on market intelligence, author services, research integrity and policy interpretation.
Open Access and research integrity became especially important areas for me because they are not simply technical or policy issues. They are deeply connected to trust, fairness and accessibility. Open Access raises questions about who can read research, who can afford to publish, and how publishing models can remain sustainable. Research integrity, similarly, is not only about preventing misconduct after it happens; it is also about helping researchers understand good practice before problems arise.
One part of the work I find especially rewarding is seeing researchers become more aware of the changing research landscape — not just following rules, but understanding why these issues matter. In the consulting part of my work, this has become a form of translation: helping publishers, institutions and authors make sense of complex policy, market and ethical developments and apply them in practice.
A lot of your work involves translating policy and market shifts into practical guidance for publishers and institutions. What kinds of questions or challenges most interest you in this area?
What interests me most is the gap between policy language and day-to-day publishing decisions. In China and across the region, policy signals can be very high-level. I’m particularly interested in questions where policy and author behaviour meet. How do evaluation reforms influence where researchers choose to publish? How do developments around AI, transparency and journal quality affect author experience and workflows?
You work across Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao — How much does published and open access landscape differ across these contexts.
Mainland China is highly policy-driven and institutionally structured. Publishing decisions are often shaped by national research evaluation systems, funding rules and university policies. But I also see the system gradually trying to rebalance. One sign of this shift is the decision by the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ National Science Library to discontinue its journal ranking list from 2026, reflecting a broader move away from over-reliance on journal metrics and refocusing more on the nature and quality of scientific research itself.
Hong Kong is more internationally oriented in its research culture and publishing practices. Universities are strongly connected to global publishing systems. Open access is usually discussed more through the lens of institutional policy, library support, research visibility, compliance, and global dissemination. There is also a stronger bridge function: Hong Kong can connect international publishers with Chinese-speaking research communities while maintaining a global academic framework.
You founded Every Author to support first-time authors through the publication journey. What gap were you trying to fill, and what have you learned from authors about the biggest challenges they face in the current publishing landscape?
I founded Every Author because I saw a gap between formal research training and the practical knowledge authors need when they prepare their first manuscript. Many authors find the publishing journey isolating. The system often assumes that authors already know the rules, but many of those rules are implicit. Authors are given very high expectations, but not always enough practical support before they make mistakes or lose confidence.
I am also concerned publishing is increasingly seen as a requirement rather than an opportunity to contribute knowledge. Scientific writing develops valuable skills building arguments, evaluating evidence, communicating complex ideas, and thinking in a structured way.
At the same time, many researchers experience anxiety about whether they have published, where they have published, and whether that publication is considered “good enough.” Artificial intelligence adds another layer to this anxiety. It can be useful, but may also intensify the pressure to produce faster, smoother-looking work without necessarily building deeper research capability.
You volunteer with CAST’s Research Integrity Committee. What draws you to that work, and what are the most pressing integrity challenges you’re seeing at the moment?
One of the key pressing issues I encounter through this work is that some forms of misconduct are still misunderstood or minimised. We need to place greater emphasis on reproducibility and transparency as core research practices. Strong documentation, data management, methodological transparency, and reproducible workflows not only improve the quality of research but also help prevent many integrity problems before they occur. Even a small amount of compromised data can pollute the scientific record, mislead future research and in fields such as medicine or public policy, potentially create real consequences for society.
What gives me some optimism is that more stakeholders — researchers, institutions, publishers, funders, libraries are recognising that integrity cannot be solved by punishment alone. It requires shared standards, practical tools, education, transparency, and a culture where responsible research is valued as much as research output.
From where you sit, how is the Open Access landscape evolving across the Greater China region — and what do those working in the UK or Europe often overlook or misunderstand about it?
Some of the deeper challenges are shared across regions, including how research collaboration, data, publishing platforms and academic trust are being affected and reshaped. There are also common concerns around equity and researchers’ ability to exchange ideas openly across borders and institutions, particularly as barriers to collaboration become more complex. Alongside this, there is a broader issue of utilitarianism in research, where publication is sometimes treated mainly as a metric, a funding requirement or a career tool, rather than as part of knowledge creation and scholarly communication.
Can you share a report, paper or initiative that’s influenced your thinking recently?
A recent book that has influenced my thinking is 我的二本学生 (My Second-Tier University Students), by Huang Deng. Drawing on 15 years of teaching experience, and long-term observation of more than 4,500 students, it offers a nuanced portrait of a group that is often overlooked in discussions about Chinese higher education.
What touched me most was the author’s patience, empathy and genuine care for her students. The book reminded me of the importance of looking beyond institutions and rankings to the people within them.
And outside of work — what helps you reset during busy periods?
Outside of work, I find that art helps me reset. I love visiting museums and seeing live performances. Yesterday, we watched Sleeping Beauty at the Hong Kong Cultural Centre, with Dutch National Ballet Principal Maia Makhateli dancing — it was brilliant.
Along with walking and visiting boutique bookshops, these moments help me regain perspective and recharge.
