Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
The e-learning resource, Supporting people living with long COVID, was developed by the Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education (CPPE) It is designed to help community pharmacy teams build their skills, knowledge and confidence The programme offers video and audio resources, practical consultation examples and strategies for supporting individuals. Professor Ian Maidment at Aston Pharmacy School has been involved in a project with the Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education (CPPE) to develop a new e-learning programme for community pharmacists, called Supporting people living with long COVID. The programme is designed to help community pharmacy teams build their skills, knowledge and confidence to support people managing the long-term effects of COVID-19. It was developed with researchers undertaking the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)-funded PHARM-LC research study: What role can community PHARMacy play in the support of people with long COVID? During the development of the e-learning resource, as well as with Professor Maidment, CPPE worked in collaboration with researchers from Keele University, the University of Kent, Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust and lechyd Cyhoeddus Cymru (Public Health Wales). The research draws on lived experience of long COVID, as well as the views of community pharmacy teams on what learning they need to better support people living with the condition. This new programme offers video and audio resources, practical consultation examples and strategies for supporting individuals through lifestyle advice, person-centred care and access to wider services. Professor Maidment said: “As an ex-community pharmacist, community pharmacy can have a key role in helping people living with long COVID. The approach is in line with the NHS 10 Year Health Plan, which aims to develop the role of community pharmacy in supporting people with long-term conditions.” Professor Carolyn Chew-Graham, professor of general practice research at Keele University, said: “Two million people in the UK are living with long COVID, a condition people are still developing, which may not be readily recognised, because routine testing for acute infection has largely stopped. For many, the pharmacy is the first place they seek advice about persisting symptoms following viral infection. The pharmacy team, therefore, has the potential to play a really important role in supporting people with long COVID. This learning programme provides evidence-based information to develop the confidence of pharmacy staff in talking to people with long COVID. Developed with people living with long COVID, the programme’s key message is to believe and empathise with people about their symptoms.” Visit www.cppe.ac.uk/programmes/l/covid-e-01 to access the e-learning programme. This project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number NIHR205384).
A global team of researchers using the new X-ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM) telescope, launched in fall 2023, discovered something unexpected while observing a well-studied neutron star system called GX13+1. Instead of simply capturing a clearer view of its usual, predictable activity, their February 2024 observation revealed a surprisingly slow cosmic wind, the cause of which could offer new insights into the fundamental physics of how matter accumulates, or “accretes,” in certain types of binary systems. The study was one of the first from XRISM looking at wind from an X-ray binary system, and its results were published in Nature—the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal—in September 2025. Spectral analysis indicated GX13+1 was at that very moment undergoing a luminous super-Eddington phase, meaning the neutron star was shining so brightly that the radiation pressure from its surface overcame gravity, leading to a powerful ejection of any infalling material (hence the slow cosmic wind). Further comparison to previous data implied that such phases may be part of a cycle, and could “change the way we think about the behavior of these systems,” according to Joey Neilsen, PhD, associate professor of Physics at Villanova University. Dr. Neilsen played a prominent role as a co-investigator and one of the corresponding authors of the project, along with colleagues at the University of Durham (United Kingdom), Osaka University (Japan), and the University of Teacher Education Fukuoka (Japan). Overall, the collaboration featured researchers from dozens of institutions across the world. GX13+1 is a binary system consisting of a neutron star orbiting a K5 III companion star—a cooler giant star nearing the end of its life. Neutron stars are small, incredibly dense cores of supergiant stars that have undergone supernovae explosions. They are so dense, Dr. Neilsen says, that one teaspoon of its material would weigh about the same as Mount Everest. Because of this, they yield an incredibly strong gravitational field. When these highly compact neutron stars orbit companion stars, they can pull in, or accrete, material from that companion. That inflowing material forms a visible rotating disk of gas and dust called an accretion disk, which is extremely hot and shines brightly in X-rays. It’s so bright that sometimes it can actually drive matter away from the neutron star. “Imagine putting a giant lightbulb in a lake,” Dr. Neilsen said. “If it’s bright enough, it will start to boil that lake and then you would get steam, which flows away like a wind. It’s the same concept; the light can heat up and exert pressure on the accretion disk, launching a wind.” The original purpose of the study was to use XRISM to observe an accretion disk wind, with GX13+1 targeted specifically because its disk is persistently bright, it reliably produces winds, and it has been well studied using Chandra— NASA’s flagship X-ray observatory—and other telescopes for comparison. XRISM can measure the X-ray energies from these systems a factor of 10 more precisely than Chandra, allowing researchers to both demonstrate the capabilities of the new instrument and study the motion of outflowing gas around the neutron star. This can provide new insights into accretion processes. “It's like comparing a blurry image to a much sharper one,” Dr. Neilsen said. “The atomic physics hasn't changed, but you can see it much more clearly.” The researchers uncovered an exciting surprise when the higher-resolution spectrum showed much deeper absorption lines than expected. They determined that the wind was nearly opaque to X-rays and slow at “only” 1.4 million miles per hour—surprisingly leisurely for such a bright source. Based on the data, the team was able to infer that GX13+1 must have been even brighter than usual and undergoing a super-Eddington phase. So much material was ejected that it made GX13+1 appear fainter to the instrument. “There's a theoretical maximum luminosity that you can get out of an accreting object, called the Eddington limit. At that point, the radiation pressure from the light of the infalling gas is so large that it can actually hold the matter away,” Dr. Neilsen said, equating it to standing at the bottom of a waterfall and shining light so brightly that the waterfall stops. “What we saw was that GX13+1 had to have been near, or maybe even above, the Eddington limit.” The team compared their XRISM data from this super-Eddington phase to a set of previous observations without the resolution to measure the absorption lines directly. They found several older observations with faint, unusually shaped X-ray spectra similar to the one seen by XRISM. “XRISM explained these periods with funny-shaped spectra as not just anomalies, but the result of this phenomenally strong accretion disk wind in all its glory,” Dr. Neilsen said. “If we hadn’t caught this exact period with XRISM, we would never have understood those earlier data.” The connection suggests that this system spends roughly 10 percent of its time in a super-Eddington phase, which means super-Eddington accretion may be more common than previously understood—perhaps even following cycles—in neutron star or black hole binary systems. “Temporary super-Eddington phases might actually be a thing that accreting systems do, not just something unique to this system,” Dr. Neilsen said. “And if neutron stars and black holes are doing it, what about supermassive black holes? Perhaps this could pave the way for a deeper understanding of all these systems.”
Soaring gold prices could bring big rewards – and even bigger risks
This week, gold prices surged to record highs, reshaping both the financial and geopolitical landscape. The University of Delaware’s Saleem Ali can explain the potential environmental, social and economic ripple effects of this gold rush and the opportunities and risks it creates. He says a controlled release of global gold reserves could help ease market pressure and mitigate the negative impacts. Ali, a professor of energy and the environment, can discuss the following main points: • The record gold price (which dipped slightly today) has implications for new gold mining projects becoming more financially attractive which could have environmental and social implications in those areas. • Major gold trading hubs like Switzerland and Dubai will need to be more vigilant as gold will become more attractive for the illicit economy for commodities. • We have major global bank reserves of gold even though the gold standard is no longer used to back currency. Some of these reserves could be liquidated to reduce pressure and negative externalities. Such a controlled release of gold reserves could help to manage the price rise. Ali also serves on the Independent Governance Committee for the Dubai Multicommodity Center, which manages all of the gold coming into the United Arab Emirates. To reach Ali directly and arrange an interview, visit his profile and click on the “connect” button. Interested reporters can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.
In the two years since Augusta University and Wellstar Health System formally signed an agreement on August 30, 2023, the historic partnership has continued to evolve into a truly collaborative alliance. At its heart, the mission hasn’t changed: improving the health and wellbeing of all Georgians while educating and preparing the next generation of health care providers through access to world-class training. That was the message shared by Augusta University President Russell T. Keen, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University Dean David C. Hess, MD, and former Wellstar President and CEO Candice L. Saunders at the recent Health Connect South conference held at the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta. During their panel “Advancing Healthcare Through Public-Private Partnerships,” the three leaders – each instrumental in helping to create, implement and mold the historic partnership – shared with close to 1,100 attendees their insight into what makes the partnership beneficial for all and how it can be a model for advancing health care and health care education in Georgia and beyond. The full panel discussion is available for viewing here: It was an important event, and a full article is attached below as well. And if you're interested in learning more about the partnership between Augusta University and Wellstar, or connect with Augusta's President Russell T. Keen - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Delaware study reveals higher rates of anxiety, substance use among LGBT+ youth
A new study has found that LGBT+ youth in Delaware are experiencing disproportionately high rates of anxiety, depression and substance use compared to their cisgender heterosexual peers. University of Delaware’s Eric Layland, assistant professor in the College of Education and Human Development, and his coauthors reported that nearly one in four Delaware teens identifies as LGBT+, a dramatic increase from earlier state surveys that put the figure closer to 5%. More than one in 20 identified as transgender or nonbinary, reflecting national trends of increased visibility among Generation Z. The study revealed stark mental health differences. About half of cisgender heterosexual youth reported recent anxiety, compared to 75 to 80% of LGBT+ youth. These rates exceed both their heterosexual peers in Delaware and national averages for LGBT+ youth. Substance use patterns also raised concerns. By 8th grade, LGBT+ students reported higher rates of drinking, smoking, vaping and prescription drug misuse. Researchers noted that their substance use looked more like that of 11th grade heterosexual students than their peers in the same grade, pointing to early onset of risky behaviors. These disparities, established in middle school, largely persisted into high school. While substance use increased among all students over time, LGBT+ youth consistently reported higher rates. Based on state population data, the findings suggest there may be 18,000 to 20,000 LGBT+ youth in Delaware, including up to 5,000 transgender and nonbinary youth. The authors say this underscores the importance of ensuring that schools, healthcare providers and community programs have the resources to meet the needs of this population. This is one of the first Delaware-specific studies on youth health disparities by sexual orientation and gender identity using data collected after the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results, researchers say, highlight an urgent need for early intervention and affirming support systems for LGBT+ youth across the state. Layland, who specializes in LGBTQ+ development and affirmative interventions, can speak more about specific interventions. He is available by clicking his profile.
Taking discoveries to the real world for the benefit of human health
It takes about a decade and a lot of money to bring a new drug to market—between $1 billion to $2 billion, in fact. University of Delaware inventor Jason Gleghorn wants to change that. At UD, Gleghorn is developing leading-edge microfluidic tissue models. The devices are about the size of two postage stamps, and they offer a faster, less-expensive way to study disease and to develop pharmaceutical targets. These aren’t tools he wants to keep just for himself. No, Gleghorn wants to put the patented technology he’s developing in the hands of other experts, to advance clinical solutions in women’s health, maternal-fetal health and pre-term birth. His work also has the potential to improve understanding of drug transport in the female reproductive tract, placenta, lung and lymph nodes. Gleghorn, an associate professor of biomedical engineering, was named to the first cohort of Innovation Ambassadors at UD, as part of the University’s effort to foster and support an innovation culture on campus. Below, he shares some of what he’s learned about translating research to society. Q: What is the problem that you are trying to address? Gleghorn: A lot of disease has to do with disorganization in the body’s normal tissue structure. My lab makes microfluidic tissue models, called organ-on-a-chip models, that have super-tiny channels about the thickness of a human hair, where we can introduce very small amounts of liquid, including cells, to represent an organ in the human body. This can help us study and understand the mechanism of how things work in the body (the biology) or help us do things like drug screening to test therapeutic compounds for treating disease. And while these little microfluidic devices can do promising things, the infrastructure required to make the system work often restricts their use to high-end labs. We want to democratize the techniques and technology so that nonexperts can use it. To achieve this, we changed the way we make these devices, so that they are compatible with standard manufacturing, which means we can scale them and create them much easier. Gleghorn: One of the problems with drug screening, in general, is that animal model studies don’t always represent human biology. So, when we’re using animal models to test new drugs — which have been the best tool we have available — the results are not always apples to apples. Fundamentally, our microfluidic devices can model what happens in humans … we can plug in the relevant human components to understand how the mechanism is working and then ask questions about what drives those processes and identify targets for therapies to prevent the dysfunction. Q: What is innovative about this device? Gleghorn: The innovation part is this modularity — no one makes these devices this way. The science happens on the tiny tissue model insert, which is sandwiched between two pieces of clear acrylic. This allows us to watch what’s happening on the tissue model insert in real time. Meanwhile, the outer shell’s clamshell design provides flexibility: if we’re studying lung tissue and we want to study the female reproductive tract, all we do is unscrew the outer shell and insert the proper tissue model that mimics the female reproductive tract and we’re off. We’ve done a lot of the engineering to make it very simple to operate and use, and adaptable to common lab tools that everyone has, to eliminate the need for financial investment in things like specialized clean rooms, incubators and pumps, etc., so the technology can be useful in regular labs or easily deployable to far-flung locations or countries. With a laser cutter and $500 worth of equipment, you could conceivably mass manufacture these things for maternal medicine in Africa, for example. Democratizing the technology so it is compatible and useful for even an inexperienced user aligns with the mission of my lab, which focuses on scaling the science and the innovation faster, instead of only a few specialized labs being a bottleneck to uncovering new mechanisms of disease and the development of therapies. We patented this modularity, the way to build these tiny microfluidic devices and the simplicity of how it's used as a tool set, through UD’s Office of Economic Innovation and Partnerships (OEIP). Q: How have you translated this work so far? Gleghorn: To date, we've taken this microfluidic system to nine different research labs across seven countries and four continents — including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Belgium and South Africa. These labs are using our technology to study problems in women’s health and collecting data with it. We’re developing boot camps where researchers can come for two or three days to the University of Delaware, where we teach them how to use this device and they take some back with them. From a basic science perspective, there is high enthusiasm for the power of what it can tell you and its ease of use. As engineers, we think it's pretty cool that many other people are using our innovations for new discoveries. Q: What support and guidance have you received from the UD innovation ecosystem? Gleghorn: To do any of this work, you need partners that have various expertise and backgrounds. UD’s Office of Economic Innovation and Partnerships has built a strong team of professionals with expertise in different areas, such as how do you license or take something to patent, how do you make connections with the business community? OEIP is home to Delaware’s Small Business Development Center, which can help you think about business visibility in terms of startups. Horn Entrepreneurship has built out impressive programs for teaching students and faculty to think entrepreneurially and build mentor networks, while programs like the Institute for Engineering Driven Health and the NSF Accelerating Research Translation at UD provide gap funding to be able to do product development and to take the work from basic prototype to something that is more marketable. More broadly in Delaware is the Small Business Administration, the Delaware Innovation Space and regional grant programs and small accelerators to help Delaware innovators. Q: How have students in your lab benefited from engaging in innovation? Gleghorn: Undergraduate students in my lab have made hundreds of these devices at scale. We basically built a little manufacturing facility, so we have ways to sterilize them, track batches, etc. We call it “the foundry.” In other work, graduate students are engineering different components or working on specific system designs for various studies. The students see collaborators use these devices to discover new science and new discoveries. That's very rewarding as an engineer. Additionally, my lab focuses on building solutions that are useful in the clinic and commercially viable. As a result, we've had two grad students spin out companies related to the work we've been doing in the lab. Q: How has research translation positively impacted your work? Gleghorn: I started down this road maybe five years ago, seriously trying to think about how to translate our research findings. Being an entrepreneur, translating technology — it's a very different way to think about your work. And so that framework has really permeated most of the research that I do now and changed the way I think about problems. It has opened new opportunities for collaboration and for alternate sources of funding with companies. This has value in terms of taking the research that you're doing fundamentally and creating a measurable impact in the community, but it also diversifies your funding streams to work on important problems. And different viewpoints help you look at the work you do in new ways, challenging you to define the value proposition, the impact of your work.
Government Shutdown: With Senate in the spotlight, expert Gerald Gamm offers insight
The Senate returned to Capitol Hill on the first day of a government shutdown to vote on two funding bills aimed at getting the government up and running amid an ongoing blame game among congressional leaders. University of Rochester political scientist Gerald Gamm is watching the deliberations and political maneuverings closely and is in a unique position to lend insight on the negotiations and gamesmanship. Gamm is a co-author of Steering the Senate (Cambridge University Press, June 2025). The book has received high praise from a multitude of sources, and has been called "essential reading for all who care — or worry — about the past and future of institutional leadership and capacity on Capitol Hill," "the best book we have about the organizational development of the Senate," and "a masterpiece . . . that unearths new information on the emergence of leadership institutions and the role of parties and showing their relevance for the Senate of today." Gamm is available for interviews and can be contacted by clicking on his profile.
Recently, Craig Albert, PhD, was published in the Journal of Political Science Education. The article, 'Cyber-Enabled Education Operations: Towards a Strategic Cybersecurity Curriculum for the Social Sciences,' looks into how U.S. cyber intelligence training is overly technical and should integrate political science and social science courses to build strategic thinkers who understand adversaries’ motives and policies, ultimately strengthening U.S. national security. Craig Albert, PhD, is a professor of Political Science and the graduate director of the PhD in Intelligence, Defense, and Cybersecurity Policy and the Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies at Augusta University. His areas of concentration include international security studies, cybersecurity policy, information warfare/influence operations/propaganda, ethnic conflict, cyberterrorism and cyberwar, and political philosophy. View his profile here. Here's the abstract from the paper in Research Gate: Most cyber intelligence analysts within the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) typically enter the field with strong technical expertise, often derived from degrees in computer science or extensive technical training. However, a critical gap exists in education and training on the strategic dimensions of cyber threats. This paper advocates for the integration of cybersecurity-focused courses within social science disciplines, particularly political science, to cultivate strategic thinkers who can contribute effectively to the USIC. The inclusion of strategic policy coursework in political science curricula, as well as more broadly across social science programs, would better prepare students for careers in the USIC by deepening their understanding of the motivations, capabilities, and intentions of the United States’ strategic adversaries in cyberspace—specifically Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Such training would equip analysts with critical insights to improve their effectiveness in identifying, attributing, and mitigating cyber intrusions. Moreover, a stronger emphasis on the human behavior and policy dimensions of cybersecurity would enhance the overall competency of the USIC workforce, thereby strengthening U.S. national security policy. Looking to know more? Let us help. Craig Albert, PhD, is available to speak with media. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
University Communications Needs a Bigger Role in the Research Conversation
While attending the Expert Finder Systems International Forum (EFS), several notable themes emerged for me over the 2-day event. It's clear that many universities are working hard to improve their reputation by demonstrating the real-world impact of their research to the public and to funders, but it's proving to be a challenging task - even for the largest R1 universities. Many of these challenges stem from how institutions have traditionally organized their research functions, management systems, and performance metrics. Engaging faculty researchers in this process remains a significant challenge, despite the need for rapid transformation. While this EFS conference was very well-organized and the speakers delivered a great deal of useful information, I appeared to be one of the few marketing and communications professionals in a room full of research leaders, administrative staff, librarians, and IT professionals. There's a certain irony to this, as I observe the same phenomenon at HigherEd marketing conferences, which often lack representation from research staff. My point is this. We can't build better platforms, policies, and processes that amplify the profile of research without breaking down silos. We need University Communications to be much more involved in this process. As Baruch Fischhoff, a renowned scholar at Carnegie Mellon University, notes: Bridging the gap between scientists and the public “requires an unnatural act: collaboration among experts from different communities” – but when done right, it benefits everyone. But first, let's dive in a little more into RIM's and Expert Finder Systems for context. What are Research Information Systems (RIMs) Research Information Management systems (aka Expert Finder Systems) are the digital backbone that tracks everything researchers do. Publications, grants, collaborations, patents, speaking engagements. Think of them as massive databases that universities use to catalog their intellectual output and demonstrate their research capacity. These systems matter. They inform faculty promotion decisions, support strategic planning and grant applications, and increasingly, they're what institutions point to when asked to justify their existence to funders, accreditors, and the public. But here's the problem: most RIM systems were designed by researchers, for researchers, during an era when academic reputation was the primary currency. The game has fundamentally changed, and our systems haven't caught up. Let's explore this further. Academic Research Impact: The New Pressure Cooker Research departments across the country are under intense pressure to demonstrate impact—fast. State legislators want to see economic benefits from university research. Federal agencies are demanding clearer public engagement metrics. Donors want stories, not statistics. And the general public? They're questioning whether their tax dollars are actually improving their lives. Yet some academics are still asking, “Why should I simplify my research? Doesn’t the public already trust that this is important?” In a word, no – at least, not like they used to. Communicators must navigate a landscape where public trust in science and academia is not a given. The data shows that there's a lot of work to be done. Trust in science has declined and it's also polarized:. According to a Nov. 2024 Pew Research study, 88% of Democrats vs. 66% of Republicans have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists; overall views have not returned to pre-pandemic highs and many Americans are wary of scientists’ role in policymaking. While Public trust in higher education has declined, Americans see universities having a central role in innovation. While overall confidence in higher education has been falling over the past decade, a recent report by Gallup Research shows innovation scores highest as an area where higher education helps generate positive outcomes. Communication is seen as an area of relative weakness for scientists. Overall, 45% of U.S. adults describe research scientists as good communicators, according to a November 2024 Pew Research Study. Another critique many Americans hold is the sense that research scientists feel superior to others; 47% say this phrase describes them well. The traditional media ecosystem has faltered:. While many of these issues are largely due to research being caught in a tide of political polarization fueled by a significant rise in misinformation and disinformation on social media, traditional media have faced serious challenges. Newsrooms have shrunk, and specialized science journalists are a rare breed outside major outlets. Local newspapers – once a reliable venue for highlighting state university breakthroughs or healthcare innovations – have been severely impacted. The U.S. has lost over 3,300 newspapers since 2005, with closures continuing and more than 7,000 newspaper jobs vanished between 2022 and 2023 according to a Northwestern University Medill Report on Local News. Competition for coverage is fierce, and your story really needs to shine to grab a journalist's attention – or you need to find alternative ways to reach audiences directly. The Big Message These Trends are Sending We can’t just assume goodwill – universities have to earn trust through clear, relatable communication. Less money means more competition and more scrutiny on outcomes. That's why communications teams play a pivotal role here: by conveying the impact of research to the public and decision-makers, they help build the case for why cuts to science are harmful. Remember, despite partisan divides, a strong majority – 78% of Americans – still agree government investment in scientific research is worthwhile. We need to keep it that way. But there's still a lot of work to do. The Audience Mismatch Problem The public doesn't care about your Altmetrics score. The policymakers I meet don't get excited about journal impact factors. Donors want to fund solutions to problems they understand, not citations in journals they'll never read. Yet our expert systems are still designed around these traditional academic metrics because that's what the people building them understand. It's not their fault—but it's created a blind spot. "Impact isn't just journal articles anymore," one EFS conference panelist explained. "It's podcasts, blogs, media mentions, datasets, even the community partnerships we build." But walk into most research offices, and those broader impacts are either invisible in the system or buried under layers of academic jargon that external audiences can't penetrate. Expert systems have traditionally been primarily focused on academic audiences. They're brilliant at tracking h-Index scores, citation counts, and journal impact factors. But try to use them to show a state legislator how your agriculture research is helping local farmers, or explain to a donor how your engineering faculty is solving real-world problems? There's still work to do here. As one frustrated speaker put it: "These systems have become compliance-driven, inward-looking tools. They help administrators, but they don't help the public understand why research matters. The Science Translation Crisis Perhaps the most sobering observation came from another EFS Conference speaker who said it very plainly. "If we can't explain our work in plain language, we lose taxpayers. We lose the community. They don't see themselves in what we do." However, this feels more like a communication problem masquerading as a technology issue. We've built systems that speak fluent academic, but the audiences we need to reach speak human. When research descriptions are buried in jargon, when impact metrics are incomprehensible to lay audiences, when success stories require a PhD to understand—we're actively pushing away the very people we need to engage. The AI Disruption Very Few Saw Coming Yes, AI, like everywhere else, is fast making its mark on how research gets discovered. One impassioned speaker representing a university system described this new reality: "We are entering an age where no one needs to click on content. AI systems will summarize and cite without ever sending the traffic back." Think about what this means for a lot of faculty research. If it's not structured for both AI discovery and human interaction, your world-class faculty might as well be invisible. Increasingly, you will see that search traffic isn't coming back to your beautifully designed university pages—instead, it's being "synthesized" and served up in AI-generated summaries. I've provided a more detailed overview of how AI-generated summaries work in a previous post here. Keep in mind, this isn't a technical problem that IT can solve alone. It's a fundamental communications challenge about how we structure, present, and distribute information about our expertise. Faculty Fatigue is Real Meanwhile, many faculty are experiencing serious challenges managing busy schedules and mounting responsibilities. As another EFS panelist commented on the challenges of engaging faculty in reporting and communicating their research, saying, "Many faculty see this work as duplicative. It's another burden on top of what they already have. Without clear incentives, adoption will always lag." Faculty researchers are busy people. They will engage with these internal systems when they see direct benefits. Media inquiries, speaking opportunities, consulting gigs, policy advisory roles—the kind of external visibility that advances careers and amplifies research impact. And they require more support than many institutions can provide. Yet, many universities have just one or two people trying to manage thousands of profiles, with no clear strategy for demonstrating how tasks such as profile updates and helping approve media releases and stories translate into tangible opportunities. In short, we're asking faculty to feed a system that feels like it doesn't feed them back. Breaking Down the Silos Which brings me to my main takeaway: we need more marketing and communications professionals in these conversations. The expert systems community is focused on addressing many of the technical challenges—data integration, workflow optimization, and new metadata standards — as AI transforms how we conduct research. But they're wrestling with fundamental communication challenges about audience, messaging, and impact storytelling. That's the uncomfortable truth. The systems are evolving whether we participate or not. The public pressure for accountability isn't going away. Comms professionals can either help shape these systems to serve critical communications goals or watch our expertise get lost in translation. ⸻ Key Takeaways Get Closer to Your Research: This involves having a deeper understanding of the management systems you use across the campus. How is your content appearing to external audiences? —not just research administrators, but the journalists, policymakers, donors, and community members we're trying to reach. Don't Forget The Importance of Stories: Push for plain-language research descriptions without unnecessarily "dumbing down" the research. Show how the work your faculty is doing can create real-world benefits at a local community level. Also, demonstrate how it has the potential to address global issues, further enhancing your authority. And always be on the lookout for story angles that connect the research to relevant news, adding value for journalists. Structure Expert Content for AI Discoverability: Audit your content to see how it's showing up on key platforms such as Google Gemini, ChatGPT. Show faculty how keeping their information fresh and relevant translates to career opportunities they actually care about. Show Up at These Research Events: Perhaps most importantly, communications pros need to be part of these conversations. Next year's International Forum on Expert Finder Systems needs more communications professionals, marketing strategists, and storytelling experts in the room. The research leaders, administrators and IT professionals you will meet have a lot of challenges on their plate and want to do the right thing. They will appreciate your input. These systems are being rapidly redesigned - Whether you're part of the conversation or not. The question is: do we want to influence how they serve our institutions' communications goals, or do we want to inherit systems that work brilliantly for academic audiences but get a failing grade for helping us serve the public?
LSU Ranked #1 University in Louisiana, Climbs in National WSJ Ranking
Louisiana State University has been named the #1 university in Louisiana and climbed to No. 179 in the nation in the Wall Street Journal's 2026 Best Colleges in the U.S. Rankings. This marks a steady rise from LSU's No. 188 ranking in 2025. The Wall Street Journal ranking evaluates universities on several measures, including student outcomes, campus experience, and financial value, with LSU earning an overall score of 69.4. Among the highlights: Student Outcomes: LSU scored a 75 for graduation rate and a 71 for salary impact, underscoring strong student success and career readiness. Value: The report highlights LSU's affordability and return on investment, with an average net price of $20,015 and graduates experiencing a value-added average wage increase of $37,023. Efficiency: LSU graduates, on average, are projected to pay off their education in just 2 years and 1 month. Student Experience: LSU earned strong marks for learning facilities (69), career preparation (67), and recommendation score (72). "Given the exceptional year LSU has had, it's no surprise we're rising in national rankings. LSU is recognized as the top university in Louisiana, and that's exactly what you should expect from an institution whose mission is to serve this state. That recognition tells me we're delivering on our promise to our students and to the people of Louisiana," said LSU Interim President Matt Lee. The ranking builds on LSU's Scholarship First Agenda, which focuses on advancing research, improving student success, and fueling Louisiana's workforce and economy. For the full rankings, visit Wall Street Journal Best Colleges 2026.
