Research Consulting’s team draws on a rich mix of backgrounds across the research ecosystem. In this edition of our Meet the Team series, we’re getting to know Dylan Storan, Senior Consultant, who brings a background in scholarly publishing and materials chemistry to his work on academic publishing, research integrity and scholarly communication.
You’ve moved from materials chemistry research, to journal publishing at IOP, to consultancy at RC – quite a shift in vantage point each time. What drew you to each step, and how do those earlier roles influence how you approach client work now?
After four years of benchwork during my PhD, I felt like I still really liked research but didn’t necessarily want to be in the lab doing experiments. Publishing felt like a way of staying close to interesting science while seeing a much broader range of research – and not having to do experiments! I was finishing my PhD in materials chemistry when I saw a Publisher role in IOP Publishing’s materials portfolio. Before I worked in publishing, I really had no idea about the machine that is scholarly publishing – but I quickly became interested in the system around research – how it gets communicated, funded, assessed and trusted.
Research Consulting felt like another widening of the lens. Instead of working on individual journals, I could work across publishers, universities, funders and other parts of the research ecosystem. Having been a researcher, and then worked within a publisher, means that now as a consultant I think about recommendations in terms of how they’ll actually land in practice with both publishers and authors.
You’ve now seen the research and publishing landscape from a few different angles – as a researcher, from inside a publisher, and internationally. What does that breadth let you see that a single-vantage-point career might not?
It makes you quite conscious that perfectly rational decisions from one part of the system can create unintended problems somewhere else. Researchers, publishers, funders and universities are all operating under different incentives and constraints, and I think a lot of frustration comes from people seeing only their particular piece of the puzzle.
Researchers sometimes underestimate how much infrastructure and work sits behind publishing – I know I did! And conversely, publishers can sometimes overestimate how much researchers engage with the mechanics of publishing.
As someone who spends a lot of my time thinking about open science, it’s easy to fall into the trap of assuming researchers are thinking about these issues all the time too – but in my experience, that’s not really true. Sure, some researchers care passionately about open science, and want to actively engage with it. But for many others, it’s not top of mind day-to-day and it’s not because they don’t care, but because their attention is on their own research. That’s what really drives them, and publishing papers off the back of it.
Is there a recent RC project that’s stood out for you – one that connects to some of the bigger issues playing out in the research ecosystem right now?
Every project I work on genuinely feels connected to bigger issues playing out in the research ecosystem! But I think our recent research integrity work with STM, “Safeguarding Scholarly Communication,” ties a lot of current issues together. It really brought home to me how the current incentive structure has contributed to research integrity issues, which has now been further compounded by generative AI, and what measures publishers are taking to address these challenges. Coming from a publisher myself, it was really interesting to step outside of an individual organisation and look at the response across the sector.
What’s struck you about how RC approaches client work, coming from the publisher side rather than the consultancy world?
I think what’s really interesting about how we approach client work is our flexibility. You can have the best proposal in the world, and it’ll tick all the requirements the client asked for, but you can never be completely sure you’re asking the right questions until you actually begin a consultation.
What I’ve found interesting is that in instances where it would have been quite easy to stick rigidly to what we said we’d do in a proposal and simply deliver it, instead we say to the client: “We started out doing X as planned, but it’s raised Y as an issue. If we do Z, we think it’ll give you more useful information and enable us to make better recommendations.” Clients tend to trust our judgement in these situations, and I think that reflects that the aim is to deliver something genuinely useful and actionable – not just what was originally scoped.
Is there a book, report or something you’ve read recently that’s shifted your thinking?
I’m currently reading Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber. It’s a pretty provocative book exploring what makes people feel their work is meaningful, and it’s been eye-opening about the surprisingly large share of people who genuinely feel their job doesn’t create any value.
It forced me to reflect on whether the work I do feels meaningful – and it does. A good example is some recent work we’ve done with Research4Life: if our work helps an organisation like that remain sustainable and continue providing access to research in lower-income countries, there’s very tangible value in that. I’m also currently working on a project supporting a charity research institute to improve its research data infrastructure – they’re doing genuinely important work on how serious diseases are understood and treated. If what we do helps their researchers spend less time wrestling with infrastructure and more time doing that research effectively, that feels meaningful too. I like being part of what enables other organisations to do important things better.
And finally, what helps you switch off outside of work? Any hidden talents or unusual hobbies?
I like to run! Running is a big part of my life, and when I’m not in the office I’m probably running. I run long distances, and I actually think I do some of my best thinking out on a run.
Bonus fact: I think Superman: The Movie (1978) is the greatest movie ever made.
