for research use only in spanish

Voice speed

Text translation, source text, translation results, document translation, drag and drop.

Website translation

Enter a URL

Image translation

• Look up in Linguee
• Suggest as a translation of "research"

Linguee Apps

• Translate as you type
• World-leading quality
• Drag and drop documents

▾ Dictionary English-Spanish

Research noun —, investigación f (almost always used) ( plural: investigaciones f ), investigaciones pl f, research verb ( researched , researched ) —, investigar v, field research n —, research firm n —, research scientist n —, research skills pl —, basic research n —, research literature n —, research group n —, research center ae n —, research company n —, educational research n —, research focus n —, research vessel n —, research area n —, research collaboration n —, thorough research n —, research student n —, research activity n —, agricultural research n —, preliminary research n —, historical research n —, more research n —, innovative research n —, environmental research n —, research assignment n —, research potential n —, research period n —, research expenses pl —, research concept n —, continual research n —, personnel research n —, main research n —, research study n —, research institution n —, research intensity n —, permanent research n —, ▸ wikipedia, ▾ external sources (not reviewed).

• This is not a good example for the translation above.
• The wrong words are highlighted.
• It does not match my search.
• It should not be summed up with the orange entries
• The translation is wrong or of bad quality.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Translation of research – English-Spanish dictionary

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• He has dedicated his life to scientific research.
• He emphasized that all the people taking part in the research were volunteers .
• The state of Michigan has endowed three institutes to do research for industry .
• I'd like to see the research that these recommendations are founded on.
• It took months of painstaking research to write the book .
• The amount of time and money being spent on researching this disease is pitiful .
• We are researching the reproduction of elephants .
• She researched a wide variety of jobs before deciding on law .
• He researches heart disease .
• The internet has reduced the amount of time it takes to research these subjects .

Related word

(Translation of research from the Cambridge English-Spanish Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)

Translation of research | GLOBAL English–Spanish Dictionary

(Translation of research from the GLOBAL English-Spanish Dictionary © 2020 K Dictionaries Ltd)

Examples of research

Translations of research

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

(especially of earth or crops) dried out because of too much heat and not enough rain

Fakes and forgeries (Things that are not what they seem to be)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English–Spanish    Noun Verb
• GLOBAL English–Spanish    Noun Verb
• Translations
• All translations

To add research to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add research to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

research translation | English-Spanish dictionary

audience research , cancer research , consumer research , market research

• Edit the entry
• Delete the entry
• Add a suggestion
• Add comment
• ! Put in pending

Sign up to add your entry

2 Translation results for research in Spanish

Research noun.

Example sentences of research noun

• • She conducts research into the causes of Alzheimer's disease.
• • Recent research shows that the disease is caused in part by bad nutrition.
• • The study is an important piece of research .
• • He did a lot of research before buying his car.

• La palabra research se usa normalmente como un sustantivo incontable. She conducts research on the causes of Alzheimer's disease. La forma plural researches se usa en ciertos contextos. We read about Sigmund Freud's researches into the human psyche. ; pero muchos prefieren usar research studies o simplemente studies en su lugar.

research verb

Example sentences of research verb.

• • He spent the summer researching his dissertation.
• • Before going out to eat, she researched area restaurants.
• • The reporter made hundreds of telephone calls while researching the story.

Reverse translation for research

English-Spanish translator

English to Spanish translator

Spanish to English translator

English to Spanish translation

Spanish to English dictionary

Learn English

English Vocabulary

English Grammar

Learn English by playing

English Grammar Quizzes

English Vocabulary Quizzes

Saved English translations

My English words

My English translations

My English mistakes

Stay Connected

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How to use MLA for a paper in Spanish?

I'm currently working on a Spanish paper in MLA for an undergraduate course and have stumbled on some confusion for my Works Cited for which I can find no definitive answer. MLA says that I should use the header "Works Cited" before my citations, but does this still apply for other languages? Should I put "La bibliografía" or "Las referencias bibliográficas" instead? Thank you!

• I always used "Bibliografía", the article sounds weird to me. –  Davidmh Commented Dec 5, 2016 at 21:26
• You could check with Spanish Language SE. However, this is a great question to ask your instructor, since s/he may have a preference. –  aparente001 Commented Dec 5, 2016 at 23:42
• @aparente001 I think it'd be more on topic here then on there, although it probably would be okay there too –  user0721090601 Commented Dec 6, 2016 at 6:09

3 Answers 3

I have always used/seen for MLA in Spanish, and instruct my students to use Obras citadas . In truth, Bibliografía is vastly more common in native-Spanish, non-MLA works, but the same could be said of English Bibliography .

Since MLA keeps the references to strictly the works that were, well, cited (as opposed to read during research or useful for further reading), thus making a difference between a bibliography and a list of works cited, it has always seemed logical to me to make the same distinction in Spanish.

And just to give you a specific reference, grabbing a random journal I have here — Hispania , which generally uses MLA— references for articles are found in a section entitled Works Cited (English) or Obras citadas (Spanish/Portuguese).

I am not a native Spanish speaker, but I have quite much experience in reading about MLA in Spanish and have seen much on how the works cited page is required to be entitled by different universities whose primary language is Spanish.

In a vast majority of cases, the recommended Spanish title for Works Cited is Obras citadas . Here are some sources to prove this affirmation (words put in bold by me):

Grafiati – ¿Cómo formatear página con la lista de las fuentes referenciadas en MLA (8ᵃ ed.)? :

...Título se centra sin usar cursiva y negrita. El título recomendable es " Obras citadas " ("Works cited").

Universidad de Los Andes :

Al final del trabajo se debe incluir una sección titulada " Obras citadas " con los datos de las obras consultadas.

Norman Marín Calderón – El estilo de redacción del manual MLA: la nueva edición (2016) para el usuario hispanohablante :

...los elementos antes mencionados, según se utilicen en (I) la lista de “ Obras citadas ”...

Sometimes, you can also stumble upon other recommendations, for example, the one provided in Purdue Owl – Índice de Obras Citadas de MLA: Formato Básico :

Titule la página Índice de Obras Citadas (no ponga las palabras Índice de Obras Citadas en cursiva ni entre comillas), centre el título en la parte superior de la página.

Note that all these examples are not any official translations of the MLA recommendations into Spanish. As none actually exists, different guidelines can be offered locally by your university, scientific journal, and so on. In general, I believe that ' Obras citadas ' is the most widespread option and the closest one compared to the original English title. I would stick to it, if no other guidelines are provided by your institution.

In my own Spanish classes, our professors instructed us to title the "Works Cited" page as "Fuentes" (meaning "sources") instead.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged citations language literature ..

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags

Hot Network Questions

• How (if at all) are the PHB rules on Hiding affected by the Skulker feat and the Mask of the Wild trait?
• What is the difference between "боля" and "болея"?
• Advice for beginning cyclist
• How do we understand intuitively how the quotient topology changes as we make the relation bigger or smaller?
• Arrays. Find row with most 1's, in O(n)
• Article that plagiarized our paper is still available and gets cited - what to do?
• How to handle arguments in an efficient and flexible way?
• When hiding behind something, can you even make a ranged attack with advantage?
• Is there any way to play Runescape singleplayer?
• English translation of a quatrain from the "Rubaiyat" of Omar Khayyam
• Uniqueness of Maxwell Lagrangian
• Reviewers do not live up to own quality standards
• How to draw a number of circles inscribed in a square so that the sum of the radii of the circle is greatest?
• Is there a second-order non-linear addition to Maxwell's equations?
• Story featuring an alien with an exotic sensorium (sonar?) that helps solve a murder
• Can sacrificing a Queen be considered a brilliant move?
• Prove that the numbers 2008 and 2106 are not terms of this sequence.
• Maximal eigenvalue of a real symmetric Toeplitz matrix
• If I'm using HSTS, can I skip the scheme from my CSP directives?
• Did the NES CPU save die area by omitting BCD?
• Why can real number operations be applied to complex numbers?
• Where did Borobudur's stones come from?
• I'm a web developer but I am being asked to automate testing in selenium
• Is there any piece that can take multiple pieces at once?

research study

• Pronunciation

THE BEST SPANISH-ENGLISH DICTIONARY

Get more than a translation, written by experts, translate with confidence, spanish and english example sentences, examples for everything, regional translations, say it like a local.

Making educational experiences better for everyone.

Immersive learning for 25 languages

Marketplace for millions of educator-created resources

Fast, easy, reliable language certification

Fun educational games for kids

Comprehensive K-12 personalized learning

Trusted tutors for 300+ subjects

35,000+ worksheets, games, and lesson plans

Adaptive learning for English vocabulary

College & Research Libraries ( C&RL ) is the official, bi-monthly, online-only scholarly research journal of the Association of College & Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association.

C&RL is now on Instragram! Follow us today.

Juan-Carlos Fernández-Molina is a Professor in the Department of Information and Communication Studies at the University of Granada, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] .

Kristin R. Eschenfelder is a Professor in the Information School at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; e-mail: [email protected] .

Alan Rubel is an Associate Professor in the Information School at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; e-mail: [email protected] .

C&RL News

ALA JobLIST

Advertising Information

• Research is an Activity and a Subject of Study: A Proposed Metaconcept and Its Practical Application (76335 views)
• Information Code-Switching: A Study of Language Preferences in Academic Libraries (39772 views)
• Three Perspectives on Information Literacy in Academia: Talking to Librarians, Faculty, and Students (28142 views)

Comparing Use Terms in Spanish and US Research University E-journal Licenses: Recent Trends

Juan-Carlos Fernández-Molina, Kristin R. Eschenfelder, and Alan P. Rubel *

This paper describes the results of a study to compare contemporary e-journal licenses from two research universities in the United States and Spain in terms of e-reserves, interlibrary loan, text and data mining, authors’ rights and treatment of copyright exceptions, usage statistics, governing law, data privacy, and obligations entailing security. The data include a higher proportion of scholarly society and academic press publishers than earlier license analyses. This analysis compares license terms over time, across publisher types and between the two libraries, and it compares findings with recommendations from model licenses. The results show progress toward model license goals in some areas, but deficiencies in others including self-archiving, usage statistics clauses, and clauses related to e-resource data privacy and library security and disciplinary obligations. Our findings also raise questions about international ILL and governing venue clauses in library licenses outside the North American context.

Introduction

In the digital setting, licenses for information sources (journals, e-books, databases) have replaced sales as the most common means of obtaining access. This situation presents advantages and disadvantages. Among the former, upheld as particularly advantageous by the representatives of the academic publishing sector, are the flexibility to arrive at agreements acceptable to both parties involved, and their adaptability to an ever-changing environment, alleviating the inevitable problems of copyright law to update as quickly as required. Also important, however, are the disadvantages—license terms may weaken or nullify end user and library exceptions to copyright law. In most jurisdictions, what is laid out in a contract prevails over exceptions provided for by copyright law. 1

Unfortunately, the application of this general principle of freedom of contract is only positive if there is an adequate balance between the two negotiating parties, something that is not normally the case with licenses for digital resources. They are usually contracts with a standard, predetermined content. Even when there is, in theory, a possibility to negotiate the terms and conditions, in practice this is complicated by the tremendous difference in negotiating power between publishers and users. Past studies have shown it is not unusual for academic libraries to sign licenses with clauses that impede both end user and library rights granted by copyright law. 2 Model licenses, such as those from Liblicense and the California Digital Library (CDL) Model License, provide a template that librarians can use in developing licenses, also serving as a statement about what license terms are acceptable to the library community. 3 Yet libraries are not always able to implement them because the scholarly publications market functions as an oligopoly, dominated by a few major publishers that control content. For example, more than 50 percent of the articles registered in the Web of Science appear in journals owned by one of the five largest publishing houses (Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Sage). The figure is more than 70 percent in the realm of the social sciences. 4

In the face of these concerns about licensing, our study has two objectives. One is to appraise to what extent license terms have changed in comparison to model license suggestions and the findings from prior licensing studies. The second goal is to examine international differences in licenses, and especially to confirm if any effect on the contents of the licenses may be traced to the fact that we are dealing with countries having two different legal traditions: Common Law (USA) and Civil Law (Spain). In the latter, the exceptions and limitations to copyright conform a closed list with a series of strict criteria and circumstances that must be given for their application. On the contrary, in Common Law countries there is an “umbrella” exception, fair use/dealing.

We obtained licenses from two different research universities on opposite sides of the Atlantic—one in the USA and one in Spain. Both institutions are large public universities with a full-time enrollment of more than 40,000 students each. Both offer a variety of academic and professional programs, so that their libraries subscribe to a wide array of electronic journals and other resources. We analyze license terms related to eight areas: electronic reserves (e-reserves), interlibrary loan, text and data mining, authors’ rights, usage statistics, governing law, data privacy, and obligations entailing security.

Literature Review

Below we review research into license terms related to each area of our analysis. Given the goal of our paper, we focus on studies examining license terms regardless of whether those licenses are signed or publisher boilerplate licenses. Because of the changing nature of license terms, we focus primarily on studies published in 2010 or later.

One issue of continuing importance in licensing, especially given the growth of online higher education, is that of terms related to electronic reserves (e-reserves). Studies examining librarian perceptions of e-reserves policies or e-reserves practices in different libraries are prevalent, but fewer studies have examined license terms. 5 Prior work has shown that most licenses allow e-reserves, but with limitations. For example, in one examination of e-reserve terms in 224 licenses from 11 publishers, Eschenfelder found 26 percent of licenses required deletion of the file at the end of use and 47 percent allowed linking to articles. She found commercial publishers’ licenses were more likely to require deletions, but also more likely to permit linking. 6

Interlibrary loan is a frequent focus of licensing scholarship because the license operates like a gatekeeper that can halt any ILL petition. 7 ILL license terms may restrict the type of receiving library (for example, no commercial institutions), limit ILL to one nation (for instance, same nation as sending library only), or define the procedure through which the copy should be sent to the receiving library (such as requiring that a paper copy be printed and then faxed/scanned), and how it may be delivered to the ultimate user (example: paper only). Further, ILL staff may not know whether a specific journal or publisher permits ILL. 8 Past studies of license terms suggest that outright prohibition of ILL is rare, but other restrictions are still common. For example, Wiley’s 2004 survey of ILL staff in 13 libraries reported restrictions on electronic delivery, as well as delivery to commercial or for-profit libraries. 9 Lamaroux and Stemper’s 2011 review of 241 licenses at University of Minnesota and 80 licenses at North Carolina State suggested that prohibition of ILL was rare, but more likely to occur among small society publishers, and that print requirements for transmission were still common. 10 Tiessen’s 2012 review of 72 licenses at University of Calgary confirms that some licenses banned digital transmission, some required print copies as part of transmission, and at least one license did not allow transmission outside Canada. 11 The 2013 study from Eschenfelder et al. found ILL restrictions were common: 64 percent of 2006–2009 licenses did not allow ILL to commercial users, and 79 percent required printing as part of the ILL process. The authors found only 59.5 percent permitted e-transmission, around 40 percent arguably still requiring paper or fax transmittal. Eschenfelder furthermore found that, while commercial publisher licenses were more likely to include a print requirement, they were also more likely to permit secure e-transmission. Noncommercial publisher licenses tended to restrict ILL to commercial/for-profit libraries. 12

A newer issue is text and data mining of licensed databases. 13 In one prior study of how licenses address text and data mining, Grewal and Huhn analyzed 32 signed licenses from Concordia University. They found that, even though 47 percent explicitly allowed data and text mining activities, an equal proportion (47%) did not address it at all. A small portion of licenses (6%) forbade it. 14 Professional conference presentations suggest that permissions for text and data mining might be handled outside the formal license, via addenda or other side agreements. 15

Many urge inclusion of language guaranteeing authors’ rights to self-archive to promote open science and greater access to scholarly information. 16 Model licenses urge inclusion of self-archiving terms. We found few examples of analysis of self-archiving license terms in the professional literature. In one small study in 2018, Singh and Mukherjee examined boilerplate licenses from five major commercial publishers and concluded that self-archiving language was not included. 17 Other studies of self-archiving employ sources of data about authors’ rights such as the SHERPA/ROMEO database of publisher copyright and self-archiving policies, which collects policies at the publisher and journal level.

Usage statistics are important for understanding the value of an electronic resource. Model licenses, or the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), urge inclusion of terms guaranteeing usage statistics. Project COUNTER is an effort to make statistics uniform, and it is also a registry of COUNTER-compliant publishers. Although many articles discuss the value of usage statistics, or how to use them in decision making, few examine license treatment of usage statistics. In one study, Rubel and Zhang examined 42 licenses from 11 different publishers. They found that 64.3 percent of their licenses specified that publishers provide a licensee with usage data, and 21.4 percent of their licenses stated that the publisher would provide COUNTER-compliant use data. 18

Library licensing experts advise libraries to make certain the license is governed by the law and courts of the library’s home institution location or, if this is not possible, to remain silent on the issue. 19 While governing law and venue are widely discussed in licensing how-to manuals, we were unable to find prior work that systematically analyzed license text for the treatment of governing law and venue.

Licenses typically include clauses about data sharing that may impact patron data privacy. They also now typically include terms that place security obligations on libraries to monitor for breaches of licensed resources. Magi examined the privacy policies of one library’s publishers and found that most failed to meet the privacy-protection expectations suggested by library professional codes of conduct. 20 In their analysis of the privacy and security clauses of 42 licenses from 11 publishers, Rubel and Zhang found that two-thirds specified publishers could collect non-IP information about use. They report that 33 percent of licenses contained terms about publishers sharing data with third parties, and only one of the 42 licenses examined required third parties to comply with the confidentiality provisions of the license. 21

The security of licensed resources is a concern, and licenses may include obligations for libraries to notify publishers of breaches, to protect against unauthorized use, to block access of authorized users found to be in breach of terms of use, and even to take disciplinary action against those users. In Rubel and Zhang’s license study, a substantial majority of licenses (81%) required libraries to notify publishers when they learned of unauthorized use. Further, 38 percent required libraries to monitor for unauthorized use. Nearly one in 10 (9.5%) of the licenses allowed the publisher to suspend authorized user access, and 16.7 percent allowed the publisher to suspend access based on IP address. Overall, 42.9 percent of the licenses required libraries to take unspecified “disciplinary action” when they learned of unauthorized use. 22

Methodology

In the autumn of 2016, we solicited the participation of two large university libraries, one in Spain and one in the United States. In both cases, we sought permission from the head of collection development to gain access to the desired licenses. Our request was limited to publisher products to which both universities subscribed to obtain a matching set of signed licenses. Because prior licensing work has included fewer analyses of society and academic press publishers, we specifically sought to obtain licenses from those publisher types, as well as common commercial publishers. The library of the US university referred us to a consortium that had signed three of the licenses at the consortial level (Sage, Springer, and Wiley).

We gathered 36 paired licenses, that is, 18 specific publishers from each university. This included four pairs of matched university press licenses, six pairs of society press matched licenses, and eight pairs of commercial licenses. Confidentiality clauses were an issue. In many cases, the universities had not signed a confidentiality clause and provided the license with just names and total prices obscured. But, in other cases, the library would only provide portions of licenses that the confidentiality clause did not restrict; luckily, in these cases, the terms of use sections were typically available. We were unable to obtain a recent Elsevier signed license from the US university due to confidentiality clauses. Another issue that emerged was the age of the licenses. License terms change over time, and older licenses may not reflect changing norms or terms for new uses such as data mining. But university libraries may not seek to update older licenses for a variety of reasons including a preference for updating terms with addenda, or concerns that reopening negotiations may lead to a loss of preferred terms. Most of the licenses we obtained were signed after 2010, though our data do contain a few older licenses. In instances of incomplete or old licenses, we supplemented what we received with the publishers’ most recent posted English language “boilerplate” license. In instances where the newer boilerplate license terms were different, we used the newer terms because of our interest in describing contemporary terms. All but one of the licenses obtained were in English; one from the Spanish university was in Spanish.

To analyze the licenses, we created a codebook drawing on codebooks used by prior studies of licenses. 23 We added new questions from the November 2014 version of the Liblicense model license related to these issues: 1) potential diminution of copyright-related rights and privileges of the licensee or authorized users by the license; 2) authors’ rights related to open access and digital repositories; and 3) rights for text and data mining activities. We also included questions about governing law and venue.

The codebook contained yes/no questions answered with a “1” for yes and a “0” for no. Each question had accompanying coding rules to guide responses (see appendix A for copy of codebook and coding rules). All three authors had prior experience analyzing e-journal and e-book licenses. Coder training involved coding a series of boilerplate licenses collected for a different study to ensure agreement on coding rules and procedures.

Two of the authors coded each license independently, marking answers on a coding spreadsheet. The second author compared the separate analysis and noted any differences. The intercoder reliability (ICR) score was calculated at the question level. We employed a percent agreement ICR calculation that counts the number of times the coders agreed on a question and divides it by the total number of possible scores for that question. ICR scores in licensing analysis can be interpreted as the degree to which two coders interpret the license clause the same way. As recommended by content analysis methodology sources, we report the ICR score for each question separately rather than lumping all questions together, so that readers can spot areas of difficulty.

In licensing analysis, ICR scores vary based on error and license clause vagueness. In terms of error, coding scores may differ because coders are not paying close enough attention or because they simply write down the wrong number. In such cases, joint review and discussion of discrepancies can remedy errors and provide a reliable final score. Yet, in licensing analysis, coders may give different scores because license clauses are (often intentionally) vague, and reasonable people might interpret the license clause differently. In these cases, a lower ICR score is an indicator of license term vagueness.

To ensure quality and to separate any errors from indicators of vague license clauses, we tracked the ICR for each question in our analysis. In most instances where we saw discrepancies in our initial analysis, the coding differences resulted from simple coding errors. In these cases, we discussed the discrepancies and easily agreed upon a final reported score. But for some questions related to value license clauses (such as questions related to security), disagreement stemmed from vagueness about what the license required. We had set a goal of achieving an 80 percent or higher ICR agreement on all questions reflecting a typical measure of ICR reliability. In most cases, results were much better—the majority of our questions had a final agreement of 85 percent or more. In a few areas, however, we confronted license term vagueness, and we disagreed about how to interpret the term, even after review and discussion. In these instances, the first author made the final reported coding decision; still, we reported the lower ICR score resulting from the vagueness. These difficulties are described below in the Results section.

License Demographics

Appendix B summarizes our data set by the three publisher types: society, academic press, and commercial publishers. Within each group, table 1 lists the publisher name, the year the license was signed (or if it is a publisher boilerplate), and whether it stemmed from the US or Spanish university library. Despite our intention to obtain all newer licenses, there were five signed in 2009 or earlier (two from Spain, three from the US). For these five cases, we compared our data with newer terms available on publisher websites, and the differences, where applicable, were noted in the results. We received 11 licenses signed from 2010 through 2013 (four from Spain and seven from the US), and 20 licenses signed in 2014 or later (12 Spanish and eight from the US).

Electronic Reserves

Results (see table 1) confirm that permitting e-reserves is a norm but that restrictions on e-reserves remain. These include requirements to delete a work at the end of a semester or use period and permissions related to linking to articles. For example, 36 percent of our licenses require deletion of a work; this is an increase from earlier studies in which 26 percent of licenses included the limitation. 24 The rise in the proportion of licenses requiring deletion that we found may stem from the inclusion of more society and academic press licenses in this study’s sample, which points to our second important contribution. Looking by publisher type, data show important differences: no commercial publishers required deletion, but 75 percent of society publisher licenses and 50 percent of university press licenses required deletion. This is a change from earlier study results in which commercial publishers’ licenses were more likely to require deletions. 25 Another finding we observed was the disappearance of clauses explicitly permitting linking. The proportion of licenses explicitly permitting a link to articles in a licensed database was lower (19%) than in older research, which reported 47 percent of licenses including linking permission clauses. More Spanish university licenses contained terms permitting linking (28% vs US 11%).

Interlibrary Loan

Our study confirms prior work showing that most licenses permit ILL but that ILL limitations persist. This includes prohibitions on ILL for commercial users, print requirements, and limitations on international delivery. Our data (see table 2) suggest no change to prohibitions on delivery to commercial users compared to earlier studies. More than half (61%) of our licenses prohibited commercial users (ICR 89%), but that percentage increases to 70 percent if you consider only our post-2014 licenses. Our data show that a higher proportion of commercial publisher licenses (75%) included this restriction, followed closely by society publisher licenses (67%). In comparison, only 38 percent of university press licenses restricted ILL to commercial users.

The second most common limitation (36% of our sample) was the requirement that the ILL process include a printed copy (that is, sending printed copies via mail, printing a copy to fax or send via other secure methods, or requiring that the receiving institution deliver the material in print only) (ICR 83%). Compared to earlier studies, the proportion of licenses requiring printing as part of the ILL process has fallen from the 79 percent reported in older studies to the 36 percent of this study’s data. 26 The striking exception is that 61 percent of the Spanish licenses included the print requirement, whereas only 11% of US licenses contained it. Finally, a quarter of our licenses (25%) included a requirement that the receiving institutions be located in the same country as the provider (ICR 100%). We found a greater proportion of the Spanish university licenses contained this restriction (33% Spain and 16% US). This limitation on cross-border information impedes flows between Spain and other countries. Our data are too limited to make broad claims, but our results suggest a strong need to examine the prevalence of international ILL restrictions in licenses signed by non–North American academic libraries.

Text and Data Mining

Similar to Grewal and Huhn’s findings, only a small number (3) of our licenses addressed text mining (97% ICR). 27 No licenses in our sample prohibited it. Two licenses included clauses permitting it, as long as it was noncommercial. Two licenses included limitations on distributing the results of text mining. The age of our licenses may contribute to the finding: the three licenses addressing it were from 2015 and 2018 (Elsevier Spain 2015; Oxford University Press Spain 2015; Taylor & Francis US 2018 boilerplate). Our older licenses would be less likely to discuss text mining because its application to publisher corpuses is relatively new. The lack of information may also be because libraries and publishers manage text mining in separate agreements or addendums. It is desirable that licenses include clauses in which this type of activity is expressly allowed so that researchers can develop their text and data mining activities without uncertainty regarding infringement of the law. The new European directive signals the way forward, since it establishes a right to carry out these activities that cannot be canceled by contract. 28

Authors’ Rights and License Treatment of Copyright Exceptions

We examined the degree to which each license explicitly allowed self-archiving on personal web pages, institutional repositories, or third-party repositories (97%, 100% and 97% ICR, respectively). We found three licenses that permitted any type of self-archiving: two from Spain and one from the US. While just a few licenses included self-archiving rights language suggested by Liblicense and other model licenses, an earlier 2018 examination of commercial licenses found none. 29

We also examined licenses to see whether they addressed the relationship between the license and any of the copyright exceptions and privileges in favor of libraries or their users. We encountered six licenses stating that the license shall not restrict acts otherwise permitted under copyright law (92% ICR). Only two licenses were found to include a clause specifying that the license cannot impose additional restrictions over content in the public domain or that was issued under an open license. Because the UK copyright law of 2014 established the nullity of clauses that would limit copyright exceptions, we were curious to see if more publishers might include this language after 2014. Unfortunately, most of our examples of licenses that addressed this issue predate the UK law. Cambridge University Press and Taylor and Francis were examples of UK publishers whose licenses did include the language.

Usage Statistics

We examined license language related to usage statistics (Table 3). Only 50% of our licenses specified that the publisher would provide usage statistics (ICR 92%). Comparing our results to earlier work shows a decrease in the proportion of licenses including recommended usage statistics licensing terms. Rubel and Zhang found a greater proportion of licenses (64.3%) promising provision of usage data to licensees. 30 But in the earlier work only 21% stipulated that the data would be COUNTER-compliant, while our study found a larger proportion (33% with ICR 94%). Comparing US and Spain, we found that a higher proportion of licenses from the Spanish university pledged to provide usage statistics (61% vs 39%). One explanation could be that US-based librarians and publishers do not include those term in licenses because publisher compliance with COUNTER standards is now advertised and tracked via the COUNTER registry. To test this assumption, we compared our list of publishers to the projectcounter.org registry database. We found that many publishers included in the COUNTER registry did not include pledges of COUNTER-compliant statistics in their licenses. The Liblicense model still recommends inclusion of usage terms in the license.

Governing Law and Venue

Our analysis of governing law and venue focused on claims made in the license about which nation’s law would govern. Most of the Spanish university licenses (13 of 18) required a non-Spanish governing law and venue. Analysis of the US licenses is less interesting, as most major publishers have US legal offices and a US-based legal venue is typical. Within the United States, negotiations about governing law and venue have more to do with states and applicable state law; nonetheless, we did not analyze the US data at the state level. 31

The high proportion of licenses from the Spanish university requiring non-Spanish governing law and venue does not comport with resources like the IFLA E-Resource Collection Development Guide, which state that disputes should be arbitrated in the library’s home legal venue. 32 The failure to ensure Spanish governing law and venue for the Spanish university licenses has important practical implications. In the event of a conflict, the Spanish university would find it more difficult and expensive to defend its interests in a foreign court. While the publisher boilerplate typically includes the home jurisdiction of the publisher for governing law and venue, these terms are subject to negotiation. Further research would do well to examine a wider sample of non-North American signed licenses to see if this finding is common beyond our Spanish university realm.

Data Privacy

We examined the licenses to see if they contained terms about publishers sharing usage data with third parties. Only 19 percent of our licenses included this provision (ICR 97%), and they tended to be newer, commercial, or university press licenses from the Spanish university. Comparing our data to the earlier Rubel and Zhang findings on data privacy, a lower proportion of our licenses address third-party sharing (19% vs 33%). 33 One explanation is that this study included 12 society publisher licenses (six pairs), whereas the earlier work included only one. Our data show that society publisher licenses were less likely (8%) than university or commercial publisher licenses (both 25%) to include a clause addressing third-party sharing.

We also looked for language obligating third-party data users to comply with the confidentiality provisions of the license. We found only one license that contained this type of assurance (ICR 97%).

Security Rights Reserved by Publisher

Upon examining whether the licenses reserved rights for the publisher to take action to terminate authorized users’ access in case of a breach, we found (see table 4) that 56 percent of our licenses indeed included such terms. This is a noteworthy increase from the 9.5 percent found in Rubel and Zhang’s 2007–2009 license set, again suggesting that more licenses are coming to include this requirement. 34 We moreover found that, in 28 percent of our licenses, publishers reserved the right to suspend an IP address in case of a breach (ICR for both 83%) compared to the 16.7 percent found by Rubel and Zhang’s study. Analyzing the data by publisher type, we found commercial publishers’ licenses were most likely to reserve the publisher’s right to suspend authorized user access (69%), followed by university press publishers (50%) and society publishers (42%). A greater proportion of the Spanish university licenses contained clauses reserving publishers´ rights to suspend user access (72%) as compared to the US university licenses (39%).

Licensee Obligations Related to Security

We also sought to ascertain what proportion of licenses included a clause requiring the licensee (library or university) to monitor for unauthorized use (see table 5). We were only able to achieve 72 percent intercoder reliability for this question, despite extensive training, suggesting that the license language in this area was especially vague. Keeping in mind the limitations of our ICR, our data point to an increase in the requirements that libraries monitor for unauthorized use, especially among academic press and society publishers. The earlier Rubel and Zhang study found 38 percent of licenses included this obligation, 35 as opposed to 47 percent of our licenses. We also found that university press (63%) and society press licenses (50%) were more likely to include this clause than commercial publisher licenses (38%).

We also looked to see the degree to which licenses obligated a library or its university to notify the publisher about breaches. Altogether, 69 percent of our licenses included a clause obligating libraries to notify the publisher (ICR 89%). Discerning among publisher types, this study found the notification requirement was highest among commercial publishers (88%), although it was common for university press (63%) and society (50%) publishers as well. Our overall lower proportion may be due to the higher number of university and society press publisher licenses included in our study.

Finally, we examined the degree to which licenses required libraries to take disciplinary action beyond notifying the publisher. We were unable to achieve our target intercoder reliability on this question (our ICR was 61%), meaning readers should interpret these results with caution. We found that just 38 percent of our licenses included this obligation. However, considering only the post-2009 licenses in our study, the results rise to 40 percent, in line with the Rubel study. 36 Our data, allowing us to distinguish between publisher types, show that university press publishers were much more likely to include this term than society or commercial publishers (63% vs 40% and 38%). Spanish university licenses were more likely to include this term than the US licenses (44% vs 33%).

Our low intercoder reliability scores are an interesting finding in themselves because they indicate that the language in these security areas of licenses is particularly vague. While the vague license terms made it difficult for us to achieve our intercoder reliability targets, what was frustrating for us as researchers may be good for libraries. Hill and Minchew argue that vaguer language can increase library flexibility in responding to publishers when problems like breaches occur, while still allowing for local policies and procedures. 37 Confusing and difficult-to-interpret terms about library security obligations may act as a buffer. Strategic ambiguity in a license can be helpful to library managers.

To detect changes in licensing practice over time, we compared our findings to earlier licensing studies in addition to suggested terms in both the Liblicense and California Digital Library (CDL) model licenses. It should be underlined that our findings regarding such changes are limited by our data set: we attempted to obtain all newer licenses, and 20 of the 36 licenses were signed in 2014 or later; but our older licenses may not show all the newest language. This is a limitation of using “signed” licenses rather than simply analyzing publisher boilerplate terms. Arguably, the analysis of signed licenses would be a more valid representation of the terms to which libraries actually agree. This methodological tension shows that analysis of both signed licenses and boilerplate terms are important.

ILL Print Requirement

Our results suggest the requirement that printing a paper copy be part of the ILL process (“print requirement”) has fallen by the wayside over time. This change represents a positive trend from a licensing advocacy perspective. Both the Liblicense and CDL model license recommend that any signed license give librarians the freedom to fulfill the ILL request using the most appropriate mode, “using electronic, paper, or intermediated means.” Librarians negotiating licenses that still include print requirements should evoke these results to argue that print requirements are not necessary and no longer a norm in the field.

ILL Delivery to Commercial Users

A comparison of our results to those of earlier work suggests no reduction in the proportion of licenses that restrict ILL to commercial users. This lack of change can be viewed negatively, as a lack of progress. Model licenses do not include terms specifically about commercial users, instead pointing to either Fair Use or CONTU guidelines that might allow for some delivery to commercial users. On the other hand, one can see the result as positive in that the proportion of licenses restricting ILL to commercial users has not increased. Negotiators should remain vigilant in trying to remove clauses that specifically restrict ILL to commercial users and instead insert clauses that refer to Fair Use or CONTU.

E-reserves Deletion Requirement

Our data show an increase in e-reserves deletion requirements compared to earlier studies, and the results stem primarily from society and university press publisher licenses. The recommended terms in both the CDL and the Liblicense model licenses avoid any mention of deletion of ILL materials; instead, they suggest language that allows electronic reserves if the materials are used “in connection with specific courses of instruction.” Librarians negotiating licenses need to increase efforts to modify society and university press licenses to avoid mention of file deletion.

Authors’ Rights

Both the Liblicense and CDL model licenses suggest terms to retain authors’ rights for activities including self-archiving and depositing in repositories. But our results, and the results of related studies, show that few licenses include the recommended terms. This implies that licensing advocacy efforts in this area have not been very effective, at least for the two university libraries providing licenses. It could be that national or state policy initiatives to require open access copies such as Plan S in Europe, or funder requirements for open access, may be more effective. Initiatives to promote open science, especially in Europe, make it even more important that authors of the subscribing institution maintain rights so that their works can be freely used for scientific and educational purposes. Librarians negotiating licenses could pay greater attention to the inclusion of these terms.

Third-party Sharing of Usage Data

We searched to find whether licenses contained terms or conditions about sharing any type of user data with third parties. Our findings show a lower proportion of licenses addressing third-party sharing clauses than earlier work; however, the decline reflected by our results may be due to the greater number of society publisher licenses in our sample. Society publisher licenses were less likely to address third-party sharing. Model licenses recommend that user data should not be reused or sold to third parties without permission. Only two studies have reported on sharing clauses, so it is too early to claim that terms allowing sharing are becoming less common. Still, the results should encourage licensing librarians to advocate for removing terms that allow third-party sharing. License provisions related to data privacy are important, as Magi, 38 Rubel, 39 and Rubel and Zhang 40 discuss, since libraries may enter into contracts that conflict with values such as intellectual freedom and privacy. Licensing agreements that allow publishers to share data with third parties can create an avenue for patron privacy loss.

Publisher’s Right to Suspend Authorized Use

Comparing our data with earlier studies reveals a growing proportion of licenses that include terms reserving publishers’ rights to take action to terminate authorized users’ access in the event of a breach. The CDL model license includes language permitting publisher termination of access but puts obligations back on the side of the Licensor to ensure that it will only take action to stop unauthorized use “which is causing serious and immediate material harm to the Licensor.” Furthermore, the Licensor is obligated to ensure that any such suspensions are of “the shortest duration possible” and that the Licensor should immediately notify the library “of any such suspension, including the reason for the block and any supporting details.” For breaches that do not meet that level of harm, the model licenses suggest that the licensor and licensee work together to address the breach and prevent reoccurrence. Librarians negotiating licenses should advocate for inclusion of the recommended, more limited terms, rather than more general permissions for publishers to block authorized users.

Our data suggest that it is common for licenses to include clauses requiring libraries to monitor for unauthorized use. Inclusion of this clause was most prominent among academic press and society publishers. Model licenses suggest much softer alternative language that limit the library´s obligations to take “reasonable actions” to restrict access to authorized users. Model licenses do not include any terms suggesting that libraries undertake monitoring.

Our results point to a decrease in the proportion of licenses obligating libraries to notify publishers of breaches compared to earlier studies, but this decline may have to do with the number of university and society press licenses in our study. We found inclusion of this clause was most common among commercial publishers. Both model licenses suggest terms requiring libraries to notify publishers when they become aware of a breach, but both limit this obligation to situations where the library cannot immediately fix the situation—or “cannot promptly remedy it.” Librarians negotiating licenses should seek to include these more limited terms suggested by model licenses instead of terms that require notification of all breaches, even those ameliorated quickly and locally. Tomas Lipinski, for example, argues that requiring licensees to report infringers conflicts with user privacy; a privacy-respecting alternative would be a milder provision that generally affirms that the licensee will help curb abuse. 41 Likewise, licenses could provide libraries the option to address infractions themselves without reporting to the publisher. This, Lipinski maintains, provides the opportunity for libraries to address unauthorized use via teaching rather than sanction. 42

We analyzed whether licenses obligate libraries to take disciplinary action beyond notifying the publisher when a breach occurs. Our results should be treated with caution because we were not able to meet our intercoder reliability score targets due to the license term vagueness in this area. Even given this limitation, we make two arguments. First, it is clear that some licenses include this obligation even though neither model license recommends terms that would obligate libraries to take disciplinary action. Licensing librarians should remove clauses that clearly include an obligation to take disciplinary action. A second important finding is that many licenses’ terms in this area are confusing and difficult to interpret. These difficult-to-interpret terms may be helpful in satisfying both parties during a negotiation. If a licensor insists, then the more ambiguous terms may be helpful as they provide library managers more flexibility in coping with breach situations.

Where our data show deviation from model license recommended language, one explanation would be that the power and expertise imbalance between libraries and publishers in license negotiators requires concessions. Every turn of a negotiation entails costs in time, effort, and goodwill; and inclusion of all the recommended terms in a license may be too costly in situations where libraries lack bargaining power. To get one desired term or price point, a library negotiator may have to make concessions.

In comparing our finding to model licenses, we found three instances where licenses did not include recommended terms for other reasons. This was the case for terms requiring the licensor to supply COUNTER-compliant usage statistics, terms explicitly permitting e-reserves links, and terms allowing data mining. In each of the three cases, the model licenses suggest license terms for inclusion. But one explanation for the lack of inclusion of these recommended terms may be the belief that they do not need to be spelled out in the license because they are being taken care of elsewhere. It could be that law covers the issue, such as the argument that e-reserves linking from licensed resources is covered by Fair Use such that it does not need explicit permission. 43 Alternatively, it could be that a separate pledge and monitoring system (like COUNTER registry) or a license addenda (for example, for data mining) effectively deals with the issue.

International Differences

Although generalizing or extrapolating our results is risky, given that the data were drawn from just two institutions, this study including non–North American licenses gives results that reveal noteworthy differences between US and Spanish licenses. For example, we found that Spanish licenses were more likely to contain international ILL restrictions than the US ones. It would be wise for future research to examine licenses from a wider array of international libraries to assess: to what degree national ILL restrictions are more common outside North America; and the potential impact of limitations on ideals of international ILL and international information flows. 44 License negotiators should seek to eliminate the clauses that prevent ILL between different countries, something that goes against the tradition of noncommercial academic collaboration. These clauses are especially damaging for the institutions of small countries, where the number of academic institutions is lower and, therefore, it may be impossible to find the required work within national borders.

It is important to consider differences between the US and Spanish legal contexts and how they may bear an impact on license contents. The content of the licenses is designed by international publishers who tend to create uniform contracts that address the largest number of customers and that draw on law in the publisher’s home nation. For example, the Spanish licenses we examined referred to US-specific terms such as Section 108 and CONTU Guidelines, and even US export restrictions for research related to encryption or munitions. Other Spanish licenses referred to UK-specific legislation. Interestingly, we did not encounter any terms or concepts from Spanish civil law in the contracts in our sample. The only Spanish-language license studied here contained a mere translation of the original English language. One possible explanation is that, due to the very large number of academic libraries in North America and the location of many publishers in the US/UK, other nations have to adapt to foreign terms and concepts optimized for libraries and laws in the US/UK. Further, LIS scholars have suggested that greater development of the professional copyright librarian 45 or licensing librarian 46 in the context of the US might give their institutions an advantage in negotiating terms, in detriment to library professionals in other nations. Future research will ideally take in a wider sample of non–North American signed licenses or include data on non–North American licensing librarians’ experiences, to further explore these gray areas.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study makes a dual contribution to the ongoing conversation about licenses and licensing practices. First, it includes licenses signed up to the year 2016. As highlighted in the 2017 IFLA licensing literature review, licensing terms change (indeed, licensing advocacy encourages this). Yakoleva’s 2017 IFLA report urges the profession to continuously update its knowledge base about what terms licenses include and to track what licensing problems persist, which appear to have ameliorated. 47 Claims made about licenses in the mid to late 2000s may be very different from new claims founded on the analysis of more recent licenses. If we want to monitor the effectiveness of licensing advocacy and education efforts (such as model licenses) we must be on the alert for changes in license terms over time. Second, the fact that this study included licenses from a Spanish university helps bring the spotlight on issues relevant to the non-US context. Most prior studies are focused exclusively on North American licensing practices.

Our results come to underline how important it is for licensing librarians to harbor an evolving knowledge of a broad array of emerging licensing issues. Granted, price is important; yet academic librarians should not always place the emphasis on negotiating prices. They should gain in awareness of the negative implications of certain clauses and make efforts to remove them, adapt them to the language suggested in model licenses, or at least ensure that the language is vague enough to allow for local flexibilities in decision making. Our data would encourage licensing librarians to seek modifications of the following license terms:

• Argue that print requirements are not necessary and no longer a norm in the field.
• Remove clauses that specifically restrict ILL to commercial users, and instead insert clauses that refer to Fair Use, CONTU, or the relevant national library reuse rights legislation.
• Avoid obligations to delete e-reserves files at the end of a term or class and instead use language referring to ongoing use of the file.
• Include authors’ rights terms for self-archiving and deposit in repositories.
• Remove terms that allow sharing of use data with third parties without the explicit permission of the library.
• Limit publisher rights to terminate access to cases of serious and immediate material harm. Ensure access is limited for the shortest duration possible, and require immediate notification of the library.
• Avoid language that obligates libraries to monitor for unauthorized use, replacing it with language requiring reasonable actions to restrict access to authorized users.
• Avoid language that obligates libraries to notify licensors of breaches, or limit notification requirements to situations where the library cannot promptly remedy the problem.
• Remove language obligating libraries to take disciplinary action when a breach occurs.

Moreover, our results suggest broader discussion within the licensing community about the degree to which all information about a license should be retained in the license document.

• Should compliance with COUNTER usage standards be explicit in a license or is it acceptable to rely on third-party monitoring sites?
• Should e-reserves rights be explicit in a license or does it suffice to infer the rights from Fair Use, CONTU, or other national legislation?
• Should data mining terms be in licenses or managed via separate agreements?

This study illuminates a limitation of model licenses such as Liblicense or the CDL as an educational tool: they do not address every issue, leaving an information gap. Due to their role as contract templates and position statements, they do not address some controversial areas of licensing practice, nor can they provide explanation of alternatives surrounding suggested terms. For example, model licenses do not include suggested terms for library monitoring obligations. This is because the experts that created the model do not recommend any terms requiring monitoring. The model does not include language about monitoring because it does not recommend any monitoring. But the omission of the topic creates an information hole: Simply looking at the model license does not educate the licensing librarian about the problems associated with monitoring language they are likely to see in licenses. To impact licensing practice internationally, other free and accessible forms of licensing education, like an updated version of the IFLA E-Resource Development Guide, are needed. Ideally these resources would complement the guidance provided by model licenses, but they have the space to explain the pros and cons of different versions of objectionable terms and lay out an array of options from which librarians might choose, given local conditions and restrictions.

The international differences encountered in this study draw attention to a need to provide more support for libraries outside North America to take action to remove objectionable terms. Important work is being done through IFLA Copyright and Other Legal Matters interest group, but more is needed to increase capacity to get better terms, especially in situations of limited resources where transaction costs connected with negotiation aggravates the existing power differentials between publishers and libraries.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competition (projects DER2014-53012-C2-2-R and PRX16/00327).

APPENDIX A. Codebook and Code Rules

Directions:.

Each column in the spreadsheet corresponds to an answer possibility. Mark 1 in each column when your answer to the question is “Yes,” and mark “0” when your answer is “No” or is the opposite of the statement in the question.

General Coding rules that apply to all questions:

• Any text about ILL and e-reserves should only be referred to in answers to questions specific to ILL and e-reserves.
• Assume that “third party” means external, or nonauthorized users.
• Mark at least one thing for each section…even if it is a best guess.

Demographic Questions:

• Enter latest date found on licenses document (year only in 4-digit format). If there is no date information, mark 0.

Note: There are licenses signed several years ago and then have been renovated with only price changes. These licenses are updated but the original date is older.

DOWNLOADING

Specific Rules for these questions:

• The focus here is on individual scholarly/personal exchange. Any mention of ILL or e-reserves should NOT go here, commercial exchange/doc delivery not included here, republishing not included here;
• prohibition on reproducing an entire issue count as “systematic” printing/downloading.

Does this license in any way limit downloading/saving of license content by authorized users? (Mark all that apply.)

• Does not address below listed restrictions on downloading or saving.
• Forbids systematic or automated downloading/saving, including that done by robots or intelligent agents.
• Limits reproduction to personal use only (includes research, education, personal need, etc.)

SCHOLARLY SHARING AND USE

Rule specific to these questions: restrictions on posting to networks, including intranets and the internet, get coded as #13 or #14

Does this license in any way limit the electronic distribution of works by authorized users to other authorized users? (Mark all that apply.)

• Does not describe any of the below limitations on internal e-distribution.
• Prohibits any internal e-distribution.
• Forbids any “systematic” e-distribution to internal users.

Does this license in any way limit the electronic distribution of works by authorized users to nonauthorized users? (Mark all that apply.)

• Does not describe any of the below limitations on external e-distribution.
• Prohibits any external e-distribution.
• Forbids any “systematic” e-distribution to external users.
• E-distribution permitted to regulatory, patent, trademark agencies.
• Limits e-distribution to “scholarly sharing” or similar term (assumes it is for the nonauthorized recipients’ personal/research use only).
• No posting on any networks at all, including licensee’s secure networks.
• Does not permit sending materials to a country where it is prohibited by US law or regulations.

Does this license in any way limit the use of licensed materials to perform and engage in text and/or data mining activities? (Mark all that apply.)

• Does not describe any of the below limitations on text and/or data mining activities.
• Prohibits any text and/or data mining activities.
• Prohibits making the results of text and data mining available for use of others.

Does this license establish special conditions for authors who are authorized users of licensee in relation with their own works? (Mark all that apply .)

• Does not include any terms or conditions on this issue.

The author retains the royalty-free right to use their work for scholarly and educational purposes, including self-archiving at:

• His/her personal web pages.
• Institutional repository.
• Third-party repositories.

Does this license make provisions to diminish the rights and privileges of the licensee or authorized users with respect to any of the licensed materials? (Mark all that apply.)

• It includes provision stating that the license shall not restrict acts otherwise permitted under copyright law.
• It includes a provision establishing that the license cannot impose additional restrictions over the content of the licensed materials that are in the public domain or have been issued under a Creative Commons or other open license.

COURSE PACKS AND ELECTRONIC RESERVES

Does this license allow works to be used in electronic reserves or course packs for credit courses? (Mark all that apply. ) Note: I have added “course packs” because they are usually included together with “electronic reserve.”

Rule for this question:

• Ignore all references to providing Braille option for reserves.
• Does not address any of the below-listed limitations on e-reserves and course packs.
• E-reserves and course packs prohibited.
• Allowed, and no specific limitations are described.
• Requires posting of acknowledgment of source/citation.
• Requires deletion of saved files at end of semester, end of course, or after use is complete.
• Permits a link to the article in the database.
• Requires (explicit) a link to the article in the database or requires that a “hit” be registered.

INTERLIBRARY LOAN

Does this license allow use of the work in Interlibrary Loan? (Mark all that apply.)

Rules for this question:

• Do not include references to individual scholarly sharing here—only official ILL done by the library.
• Do not include limitations to “single copy” here—that is part of CONTU.
• Do not include references to “replace library subscription”—part of CONTU.
• Does not address any of the below-listed limitations on ILL.
• ILL prohibited.
• Printing is required as part of the ILL process, like before sending via fax, e-transmission, mail—or before giving document to patron.
• “Secure e-transmission” technique listed as an option for transmission.
• “Secure e-transmission” technique required for transmission.
• No sending to commercial users/no commercial uses permitted, or file must only be used for purposes of research or private study.
• Receiving institution (library) must delete received electronic copy immediately upon delivery to end user.
• Receiving institution (library) must be located within the same country as the subscriber.

Code rule: If your answer to Q41 is “0,” please mark “0” for Q42–Q45.

Code rule: If your answer to Q42 is “1,” please mark “1” for Q43.

Code rule: “Aggregate statistics” can be defined as any usage statistics that cannot be used to identify indivi dual user.

Code rule: Data about “usage activity of (each) institution” is NOT aggregated data.

Code rule: “Sharing data” will NOT include publisher’s data transferring to third party when it is acquired or merged by the third party.

Code rule: If your answer to Q44 is “0,” please mark “0” for Q45.

Code rule: This question is only applied to “data sharing” and does not include “data transferring,” as specified in the first code rule in Q44.

Code rule: If the license only includes terms to suspend access of IP address where the unauthorized occurred, then mark “0” for Q 4, and mark “1” for Q47.

Code rule: Only when the suspension action is conducted by the publisher, we should mark “1” for Q46. Therefore, if the license states that the publisher requires the licensee to suspend authorized users’ access due to their unauthorized use, then we should mark “0” for Q46, because it is the licensee, rather than the publisher, to suspend the access.

• License contains terms reserving right for publisher to suspend access of the IP address(es) from which the unauthorized use occurred.
• License contains terms requiring licensee to notify publisher of unauthorized use and/or copyright infringement.

Code rule: If the license states that the licensee will monitor usage of the licensed materials for compliance with the terms of this licensee, then we should mark “1” for Q49.

• License contains terms requiring licensee to take disciplinary action(s), other than notifying the publisher, when becoming aware of any unauthorized use.

GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE

• The license will be governed by the national law of the subscriber.
• The license will be governed by the national law of the publisher.
• Any controversy or claim shall be brought in the courts of subscriber’s country.
• Any controversy or claim shall be brought in the courts of publisher’s country.
• It includes an arbitration clause.

APPENDIX B. Licenses by Publisher, Type, and Year

*Supplemented by newer terms available on publisher websites.

1. Mark A. Lemley, “Beyond Preemption: The Law and Policy of Intellectual Property Licensing,” California Law Review 40, no. 1 (1999): 111–72, https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38D146 ; Lucie Guibault, Copyright Limitations and Contracts: An Analysis of the Contractual Overridability of Limitations on Copyright (The Hague, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2002); Philippa Davies, “Access v Contract: Competing Freedoms in the Context of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries,” European Intellectual Property Review 35, no. 7 (2013): 402–14; D.R. Jones, “Locked Collections: Copyright and the Future of Research Support,” Law Library Journal 105, no. 4 (2013): 425–60.

2. Kristin R. Eschenfelder et al., “How Institutionalized Are Model License Use Terms: An Analysis of E-Journal License Use Rights Clauses from 2000–2009,” College and Research Libraries 74, no. 4 (2013): 326–55, https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-289 .

3. California Digital Library Standard License Agreement, available online at https://www.cdlib.org/cdlinfo/2017/01/25/cdl-model-license-revised/ [accessed 20 January 2020]; Liblicense Model License Agreement with Commentary (revised November 2014), available online at http://liblicense.crl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/modellicensenew2014revmay2015.pdf [accessed 20 February 2020].

4. Vincent Larivière, Stefanie Haustein, and Philippe Mongeon, “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era,” PLoS ONE 10, no. 6 (2015): e0127502, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 .

5. David R. Hansen, William M. Cross, and Phillip M. Edwards, “Copyright Policy and Practice in Electronic Reserves among ARL Libraries,” College and Research Libraries 74, no. 1 (2013): 69–84, https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-313 .

6. Eschenfelder et al., “How Institutionalized Are Model License Use Terms.”

7. Kurt Munson, “Herding Cats: Challenges in Interlibrary Loan Lending of E-Journal Articles,” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve 22, no. 3/4 (2012): 163–73, https://doi.org/10.1080/1072303X.2012.719599 .

8. Karen Okamoto, “Licensed to Share: How Libraries Are Handling Electronic Journal Article Requests,” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve 22, no. 3/4 (2012): 137–54, https://doi.org/10.1080/1072303X.2012.717494 .

9. Lynn N. Wiley, “License to Deny? Publisher Restrictions on Document Delivery from E-Licensed Journals,” Interlending & Document Supply 32, no. 2 (2004): 94–102, https://doi.org/10.1108/02641610410538559 .

10. Selden Durgom Lamoureux and James Stemper, “White Paper: Trends in Licensing,” Research Library Issues: A Quarterly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC , no. 275 (2011): 19–24, https://doi.org/10.29242/rli.275.4 .

11. Robert Tiessen, “How Copyright Affects Interlibrary Loan and Electronic Resources in Canada,” Interlending & Document Supply 40, no. 1 (2012): 49–54, https://doi.org/10.1108/02641611211214297 .

12. Eschenfelder et al., “How Institutionalized Are Model License Use Terms.”

13. Andrée J. Rathemacher, “Developing Issues in Licensing: Text Mining, MOOCs, and More,” Serials Review 39, no. 3 (2013): 205–10, https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2013.10766397 ; Leslie A. Williams et al., “Negotiating a Text Mining License for Faculty Researchers,” Information Technology and Libraries 33, no. 3 (2014): 5–21, https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v33i3.5485 ; Megan Senseney et al., “Data Mining Research with In-copyright and Use-limited Text Datasets: Preliminary Findings from a Systematic Literature Review and Stakeholder Interviews,” presentation at the 13th International Digital Curation Conference, Barcelona, Spain, February 19-22, 2018, available online at https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/99026 [accessed 20 February 2020].

14. Paul Grewal and Kirsten Huhn, “Text & Data Mining Clauses in Academic Library Licenses: A Case Study,” paper presented at the Concordia University Libraries’ 14th Annual Research Forum, Montreal, April 29th 2016, available online at http://library.concordia.ca/about/staff/forum/files/Presentation_Grewal_Huhn.pdf [accessed 20 February 2020].

15. Jennifer Chan, Roxanne Peck, and Angela Riggio, “Negotiating Walled Gardens and Digital Playgrounds: Libraries and the World of Licensing for Text and Data Mining,” panel discussion at Electronic Resources and Libraries Conference, Austin, TX, April 2-5, 2017, available online at https://www.electroniclibrarian.org/past-conferences/past-conferences-2017/2017-presentation-files/ [accessed 20 February 2020].

16. Ellen Duranceau and Ivy Anderson, “Author-Rights Language in Library Content Licenses,” Research Library Issues: A Bimonthly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC , no. 263, 33–37, available online at https://publications.arl.org/rli263/34 [accessed 20 February 2020]; Birgit Schmidt and Kathleen Shearer, “Licensing Revisited: Open Access Clauses in Practice,” Liber Quarterly 22, no. 3 (2012): 176–89, http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.8055 ; Stephen Buck, “Role of Library’s Subscription Licenses in Promoting Open Access to Scientific Research,” presentation at the Second KAUST Library Saudi Seminar, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia, April 29-30, 2018, available online at https://repository.kaust.edu.sa/handle/10754/627730 [accessed 20 February 2020].

17. Arvind Kumar Singh and Bhaskar Mukherjee, “Electronic Information Resource Optimisation in Academic Libraries: A Comparative Study on Licensing Provision of Commercial Publisher,” DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology 38, no. 3 (2018): 213–20, https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.38.3.12468 .

18. Alan Rubel and Mei Zhang, “Four Facets of Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in Licensing Contracts for Electronic Journals,” College & Research Libraries 76, no. 4 (2015): 427–49, https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.4.427 .

19. Claire Dygert and Jeanne M. Langendorfer, “Fundamentals of E-Resource Licensing,” Serials Librarian 66, no. 1/4 (2014): 289–97, https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2014.881236 ; Claire Dygert and Robert Van Rennes, “Building Your Licensing and Negotiation Skills Toolkit,” Serials Librarian 68, no. 1/4 (2015): 17–25, https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1013384 ; Claire Dygert and Heather Barrett, “Building Your Licensing and Negotiation Skills Toolkit,” Serials Librarian 70, no. 1/4 (2016): 333–42, https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1013384 .

20. Trina J. Magi, “A Content Analysis of Library Vendor Privacy Policies: Do They Meet Our Standards?” College & Research Libraries 71, no 3 (2010): 254–272, https://doi.org/10.5860/0710254

21. Rubel and Zhang, “Four Facets of Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in Licensing Contracts for Electronic Journals,” 439.

22. Rubel and Zhang, “Four Facets of Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in Licensing Contracts for Electronic Journals,” 437.

23. Eschenfelder et al., “How Institutionalized Are Model License Use Terms”; Rubel and Zhang, “Four Facets of Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in Licensing Contracts for Electronic Journals.”

24. Eschenfelder et al., “How Institutionalized Are Model License Use Terms.”

25. Eschenfelder et al., “How Institutionalized Are Model License Use Terms,” 342.

26. Eschenfelder et al., “How Institutionalized Are Model License Use Terms,” 340.

27. Grewal and Huhn, “Text & Data Mining Clauses in Academic Library Licenses.”

28. European Union, Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, available online at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX :32019L0790&from=EN [accessed 20 February 2020].

29. Singh and Mukherjee, “Electronic Information Resource Optimisation in Academic Libraries.”

30. Rubel and Zhang, “Four Facets of Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in Licensing Contracts for Electronic Journals.”

31. Tomas A. Lipinski, The Librarian’s Legal Companion for Licensing Information Resources and Services (Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 2013), 615.

32. Sharon Johnson, with Ole Gunnar Evensen et al., “Key Issues for E-Resource Collection Development: A Guide for Libraries,” available online at https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/acquisition-collection-development/publications/Electronic-resource-guide.pdf [accessed 20 February 2020].

33. Rubel and Zhang, “Four Facets of Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in Licensing Contracts for Electronic Journals.”

34. Rubel and Zhang, “Four Facets of Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in Licensing Contracts for Electronic Journals,” 437.

35. Rubel and Zhang, “Four Facets of Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in Licensing Contracts for Electronic Journals,” 437.

36. Alan Rubel, “Libraries, Electronic Resources, and Privacy: The Case for Positive Intellectual Freedom,” Library Quarterly 84, no. 2 (2014): 183–208, https://doi.org/10.1086/675331 .

37. Kate Hill and Tessa Minchew, “Into the Great Wide Open: Licensing, Vendor Relations and Security in Interesting Times,” presentation at Electronic Resources and Libraries Conference, Austin, TX, March 24–27, 2018, available online at www.electroniclibrarian.org/past-conferences/past-conferences-2018/ [accessed 20 February 2020].

38. Magi, “A Content Analysis of Library Vendor Privacy Policies.”

39. Rubel, “Libraries, Electronic Resources, and Privacy.”

40. Rubel and Zhang, “Four Facets of Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in Licensing Contracts for Electronic Journals.”

41. Lipinski, The Librarian’s Legal Companion for Licensing Information Resources and Services , 448.

42. Lipinski, The Librarian’s Legal Companion for Licensing Information Resources and Services , 451.

43. Hansen et al., “Copyright Policy and Practice in Electronic Reserves among ARL Libraries.”

44. IFLA Licensing Principles (2001), available online at https://www.ifla.org/publications/ifla-licensing-principles-2001 [accessed 20 January 2020]; A.K. Beaubien, et al., “White Paper: International Library Loan,” Research Library Issues: A Quarterly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC , no. 275 (2011): 7–14, https://doi.org/10.29242/rli.275.2 .

45. Dick Kawooya, Amber Veverka, and Tomas Lipinski, “The Copyright Librarian: A Study of Advertising Trends for the Period 2006–2013,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 43, no. 3 (2015): 341–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.02.011 .

46. Xiaohua Zhu, “Driven Adaptation: A Grounded Theory Study of Licensing Electronic Resources,” Library & Information Science Research 38, no. 1 (2016): 69–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2016.02.002 .

47. Svetlana Yakovleva, “Literature Review on the Use of Licenses in Library Context, and the Limitations This Creates to Access to Knowledge,” (2017), available online at https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/clm/statements/limits_of_licensing_literature_review.pdf [accessed 20 February 2020].

* Juan-Carlos Fernández-Molina is a Professor in the Department of Information and Communication Studies at the University of Granada, Spain; e-mail: [email protected] . Kristin R. Eschenfelder is a Professor in the Information School at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; e-mail: [email protected] . Alan Rubel is an Associate Professor in the Information School at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; e-mail: [email protected] . © 2021 Juan-Carlos Fernández-Molina, Kristin R. Eschenfelder, and Alan P. Rubel, Attribution-NonCommercial ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ) CC BY-NC.

Article Views (Last 12 Months)

Contact ACRL for article usage statistics from 2010-April 2017.

Article Views (By Year/Month)

© 2024 Association of College and Research Libraries , a division of the American Library Association

Print ISSN: 0010-0870 | Online ISSN: 2150-6701

ALA Privacy Policy

ISSN: 2150-6701

Spanish Research

Find sources in spanish.

Need articles written in Spanish?

Use these research databases to find articles on your topic. Follow the instructions for each database to limit your search to Spanish.

Need background information?

Encyclopedias give you key facts and summaries on your topic.

• Last Updated: Mar 14, 2024 1:57 PM
• URL: https://libguides.bethel.edu/spanish

• Directories
• Topics, Keywords, & Search Tips
• Full List of Related Databases
• Books & Theses
• Dictionaries
• Encyclopedias & Overviews
• Spanish-language Films & TV
• Spanish-language News
• Digital Libraries & Collections
• Literary & Critical Theory This link opens in a new window
• Learn Spanish This link opens in a new window
• Ladino Language Resources
• Open Educational Resources for Language Learning: Spanish
• Collection Guidelines: Spanish & Portuguese Studies This link opens in a new window
• Start Your Research
• Research Guides
• University of Washington Libraries
• Library Guides
• UW Libraries
• Spanish Studies
• Find Articles & E-Journals

Spanish Studies: Find Articles & E-Journals

Uw libraries search.

Advanced Search | FAQ | Known Issues

Spanish Language and Literature: Search topic by keyword

• Dialnet Index of Spanish academic journals, includes some full text. It is particularly useful for subjects related to Spain. Coverage is 1980 to the present.

View a complete list of databases for Spanish and Portuguese Languages & Literatures.

History and Social Sciences Databases: Search topic by keyword

• SciELO Access to scholarly literature in sciences, social sciences, arts and humanities published in leading open access journals from Latin America, Portugal, and Spain.

Search Google Scholar

Popular E-Journal Packages

Google scholar.

• Google Académico Spanish Google Scholar.
• Google Scholar How to: Connect Google Scholar to UW Holdings.

Journal Search

Journal Search Search or browse journal titles held at UW. Can't find it? Request it through Interlibrary Loan .

What is a scholarly article?

• << Previous: Topics, Keywords, & Search Tips
• Next: Full List of Related Databases >>
• Last Updated: May 12, 2024 3:38 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/spanish

University of Denver

University libraries, research guides, finding sources in spanish: internet resources.

• Books & eBooks
• Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, & Handbooks
• Internet Resources

Using Google to Find Spanish-Language Websites

One of the best methods for finding Spanish-Language websites through a Google search is to use Spanish words and phrases as your search terms. If you need English-language translations for the websites, on the results page, click on "Search Tools" at the top of the page. Then click on "All Results" and select "Translated Foreign Pages." This will show you the English-language translation, but you can always click on "Show original text" to see the website in Spanish. See image below.

Another option for finding Spanish-Language websites is to limit your search to a domain from a Spanish-speaking country. For instance, the domain for Mexico is .mx. If you type site:.mx into your Google search box and then type in your search terms, you will only retrieve websites from Mexico. See image below. To find additional Country domains, click here .

Free Internet Websites

Freely available websites with academic Spanish-language content are listed below. If you are a new Spanish learner, it may be helpful to use Google Chrome as your browser as it will ask you if you want to translate pages into English.

• Biblioteca Digital Hispánica The Hispanic Digital Library is a resource from the National Library of Spain. This catalog provides free access to thousands of digitized documents that cover the sciences, philosophy, fine art, and much more. Spanish is the default language for this website, but users can select from many translations, including English.
• Hemeroteca Digital The Digital Newspaper Library is part of the Hispanic Digital Library project. It provides access to historical Spanish newspapers and magazines that are in the National Library of Spain. It currently has over 1,000 titles. This site also provides an English translation if needed.
• Dialnet Dialnet is the largest online archive of Hispanic scientific papers. It currently has over 8,000 magazines and 3,700,000 documents. Users have the option to search or browse publications. Users can also select multiple languages, including English, for translations.
• Google Academico Google Scholar, Google's academic search tool, is now available in Spanish through Google Academico. It has the same look and feel as Google Scholar, but with the Spanish-language content. Results are best when you use Spanish-language search terms.
• Si, Spain This site provides information on Spanish current affairs and cultural development and lists links to websites that also cover these topics.
• Spanish Government Portal Use this portal to find information on Spanish Government services and facts and figures.
• Mexican Government Portal This portal allows users to search for information on Mexican government services and information resources.
• Biblioteca Virtual Miguel De Cervantes This is a freely accessible portal to the Spanish-language classics. Full-texts of works and criticisms are organized by subject areas, including, Spanish literature, history, children's literature, sign language, Hispanic culture in America, and more. This site is also searchable.
• Parallel Histories: Spain, the United States, and the American Frontier This online resource is a work from the Library of Congress in collaboration with the National Library of Spain, the Library of Colombia, and the capital of Seville. It presents digital books, maps, photographs and other documents that give information on the history of the United States' relationship with Spain with a focus on exploration, settlement, colonization, cultures, American revolution, and mutual perceptions.
• LANIC (Latin American Network Information Center) This web resource is produced by the University of Texas at Austin. It provides links to websites that cover the economy, education, sciences, social sciences, government and much more in Latin America.

Librarian Profile

• << Previous: Films
• Last Updated: Mar 8, 2024 2:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.du.edu/spanish

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Consent for Research Involving Spanish- and English-Speaking Latinx Adults With Schizophrenia

Affiliations.

• 1 Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
• 2 School of Social Work, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
• 3 Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
• 4 Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
• 5 Steve Hicks School of Social Work, University of Texas, Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
• 6 Department of Psychology, Mount Saint Mary's University, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
• 7 Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, Research Service, San Diego, CA, USA.
• 8 Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC), San Diego, CA, USA.
• PMID: 37962384
• PMCID: PMC11059799 (available on 2024-11-14 )
• DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbad159

Background: Latinxs are vastly underrepresented in mental health research; one of many contributing factors may be complexities in the research consent process, including language preferences. We examined determinants of comprehension of research consent procedures and tested the effects of a preconsent research schema condition among 180 adults with schizophrenia (60 Latinx-English and 60 Latinx-Spanish preference, and 60 non-Latinx White).

Study design: Participants were randomly assigned (equal allocation) to an educational session regarding clinical research concepts and processes (schema condition) or to an attention control. Following a subsequent simulated consent procedure for a hypothetical drug trail, comprehension of consent disclosures was measured with 2 standard measures.

Study results: One-way ANOVAs showed significant medium effect size differences between ethnicity/language groups on both measures of comprehension (η2s = 0.066-0.070). The Latinx-Spanish group showed lower comprehension than non-Latinx White participants; differences between the 2 Latinx groups did not reach statistical significance. Group differences were not statistically significant after adjusting for differences in education, or on scores from structured measures of acculturation, health literacy, or research literacy. Two-way ANOVAs showed no significant main effects for consent procedure on either comprehension measure (Ps > .369; partial η2s < 0.006) and no significant group-by-consent interactions (Ps > .554; partial η2s < 0.008).

Conclusions: Although the preconsent procedure was not effective, the results suggest health and research literacy may be targets for reducing disparities in consent comprehension. The onus is on researchers to improve communication of consent information as an important step to addressing health care disparities.

Keywords: Hispanics; Latinos; disparities; ethics; informed consent; schizophrenia.

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center 2023.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Social Determinants of Health and Informed Consent Comprehension for Pediatric Cancer Clinical Trials. Aristizabal P, Nataraj S, Ma AK, Kumar NV, Perdomo BP, Martinez ME, Nodora J, Liu L, Lee E, Thornburg CD. Aristizabal P, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Dec 1;6(12):e2346858. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46858. JAMA Netw Open. 2023. PMID: 38079173 Free PMC article.
• Disparities in Comprehension of the Obstetric Consent According to Language Preference Among Hispanic/Latinx Pregnant Patients. Molina RL, Adams E, Aguayo R, Truong S, Hacker MR. Molina RL, et al. Cureus. 2022 Jul 21;14(7):e27100. doi: 10.7759/cureus.27100. eCollection 2022 Jul. Cureus. 2022. PMID: 36000127 Free PMC article.
• Latinx individuals' knowledge of, preferences for, and experiences with prenatal genetic testing: a scoping review. Grafft N, Dwyer AA, Pineros-Leano M. Grafft N, et al. Reprod Health. 2022 Jun 6;19(1):134. doi: 10.1186/s12978-022-01438-2. Reprod Health. 2022. PMID: 35668466 Free PMC article. Review.
• The effectiveness of health literacy interventions on the informed consent process of health care users: a systematic review protocol. Perrenoud B, Velonaki VS, Bodenmann P, Ramelet AS. Perrenoud B, et al. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Oct;13(10):82-94. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2304. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015. PMID: 26571285
• Participant comprehension of research for which they volunteer: a systematic review. Montalvo W, Larson E. Montalvo W, et al. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2014 Nov;46(6):423-31. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12097. Epub 2014 Aug 15. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2014. PMID: 25130209 Review.
• U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts United States: Population Estimates July 1, 2022. Published 2022. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US# . Accessed August 21, 2023.
• National Institutes of Health. The RCDC Inclusion Statistics Report. The Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization Process. Published 2022. https://report.nih.gov/RISR/#/home?ic=NIMH&facet=Ethnicity . Accessed January 4, 2023.
• Pedersen SL, Lindstrom R, Powe PM, Louie K, Escobar-Viera C.. Lack of representation in psychiatric research: a data-driven example from scientific articles published in 2019 and 2020 in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry. 2022;179(5):388–392. - PMC - PubMed
• Sharma A, Palaniappan L.. Improving diversity in medical research. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7(1):74. - PubMed
• Mandrioli R, Protti M, Mercolini L.. Metabolic syndrome in schizophrenia: focus on the role of antipsychotic medications and indications for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) methods. In: Atta-ur-Rahman, ed. Frontiers in Clinical Drug Research—Diabetes and Obesity. Vol 5. Oak Park, IL: Bentham Science Publishers; 2020:1–65.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

Grants and funding.

• R01 MH097274/MH/NIMH NIH HHS/United States
• T32 MH019934/MH/NIMH NIH HHS/United States
• R01 MH097274/NH/NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• Silverchair Information Systems
• Genetic Alliance
• MedlinePlus Health Information

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• When Labels Don’t Fit: Hispanics and Their Views of Identity
• IV. Language Use among Latinos

Table of Contents

• II. Identity, Pan-Ethnicity and Race
• III. The American Experience
• V. Politics, Values and Religion
• Appendix A: 2011 National Survey of Latinos Survey Methodology

Language use among Hispanics in the U.S. reflects the trajectories that previous immigrant groups have followed. Immigrant Hispanics are most likely to be proficient in Spanish, but least likely to be proficient in English. In the second generation, use of Spanish falls as use of English rises. By the third generation, English use is dominant ( Pew Hispanic Center, 2009 ; Hakimzadeh and Cohn, 2007 ; Pew Hispanic Center, 2004 ). Results from the Pew Hispanic survey reflect these patterns.

Even so, while English use among Latinos is higher in later generations and Spanish use is lower, Spanish use persists among the third generation. In daily activities such as listening to music, watching television or even thinking, significant shares of third-generation Latinos use Spanish, the Pew Hispanic survey shows.

According to the survey, fully 87% of Hispanics believe Hispanic immigrants need to learn English to succeed in the U.S. But at the same time, nearly all (95%) Hispanic adults believe it is important for future generations of Hispanics in the U.S. to be able to speak Spanish.

The Value of English and the Importance of Spanish

Latinos see both English and Spanish as important, though in different ways.

According to the survey, when asked whether adult Hispanic immigrants need to learn English to succeed in the U.S. or if they can succeed by speaking only Spanish, nearly nine-in-ten (87%) Hispanics say adult immigrants need to learn English. Just 11% say adult Hispanic immigrants can succeed by speaking only Spanish. These figures are unchanged from 2002, when 89% of Hispanics said adult Hispanic immigrants need to learn English and 10% said they can succeed in the U.S. by speaking only Spanish ( Pew Hispanic Center, 2002 ).

When it comes to Spanish, fully 95% of Latinos say it is either very important (75%) or somewhat important (20%) that future generations of Latinos living in the U.S. speak Spanish. Nearly all Latinos, regardless of generation, agree on this point. These findings may reflect a recent shift in priorities among Hispanics. According to the 2009 National Survey of Latinos, today’s young Latinos are encouraged to speak Spanish more so than their parents were when they were young ( Pew Hispanic Center, 2009 ).

Language Use among Hispanics

Even though nearly all Hispanics say it is important that future generations of Hispanics speak Spanish, Spanish proficiency and use is lower in later generations, while English use is higher.

Speaking and Reading

According to the Pew Hispanic survey, more than six-in-ten (61%) Latino adults in the U.S. say they can carry on a conversation in English “very well” or “pretty well.” A similar share (60%) say they can read a newspaper or book in English “very well” or “pretty well.”

As expected, English language proficiency differs by nativity. Among the foreign born or first-generation Hispanics, 38% say they can carry on a conversation in English and 37% say they can read a newspaper or book in English “very well” or “pretty well.” English proficiency is higher among Hispanics who were born in the U.S. Fully 92% of Hispanics in the second generation say they are proficient when it comes to speaking English. Likewise, 91% say they can read a newspaper or book “very well” or “pretty well” in English. Among third-generation Hispanics, 96% say they are proficient in speaking English, and 94% say they can read a newspaper or book in English “very well” or “pretty well.”

When it comes to the ability to speak and read Spanish, overall a greater share of Hispanic adults say they are proficient in Spanish than say they are proficient in English. According to the survey, more than eight-in-ten (82%) Hispanic adults say they can carry on a conversation in Spanish “very well” or “pretty well. Nearly as many (78%) say they can read a newspaper or book in Spanish either “very well” or “pretty well.”

The survey also finds that the level of Spanish proficiency diminishes in later generations. More than nine-in-ten foreign-born Latinos say they can speak and read in Spanish “very well” or “pretty well.” For the second generation—the U.S.-born children of immigrants—the share saying they can carry on a conversation in Spanish falls to 82%, and the share saying they can read a newspaper or book in Spanish falls to 71%. Among third-generation Latinos, fewer than half say they can speak Spanish proficiently (47%) or read a newspaper or book in Spanish (41%).

Primary Language

The Pew Hispanic Center uses a measure, “primary language,” that combines survey respondent self-assessments of English and Spanish speaking and reading ability into a single measure of language ability. It is meant to summarize speaking and reading ability in both English and Spanish.

Using the self-reported measures of English and Spanish proficiency in speaking and reading, survey respondents are classified in three ways—Spanish dominant, English dominant or bilingual. Respondents are classified as Spanish dominant if they say they speak and read Spanish “very well” or “pretty well” but their ratings of English ability in the same two categories are lower. Respondents are considered English dominant if they say they are more proficient in English than in Spanish. Finally, bilingual respondents are those who say they are proficient in both English and Spanish. Using this measure, the survey finds that 38% of Hispanic adults are Spanish dominant, another 38% are bilingual and the remainder, 24%, are English dominant.

Which language is more dominant is a function of immigrant generation. Among immigrant Hispanics, the majority (61%) are Spanish dominant, one-third (33%) are bilingual and just 6% are English dominant. By contrast, among second-generation Hispanics, Spanish dominance falls to 8%, but the share who are bilingual rises to 53% and the share English dominant increases to 40%. By the third generation, almost all Hispanics are either bilingual (29%) or English dominant (69%).

Language Use in Daily Activities

Listening to music.

When it comes to listening to music, 35% of Hispanic adults say they do so only or mostly in Spanish, 36% say they do so only or mostly in English and 27% say they listen to music in both languages equally.

The language used when listening to music changes sharply across the generations. Among immigrant Hispanics, more than twice as many say they use Spanish compared with English when listening to music—49% versus 18%. Among second-generation Hispanics, the opposite is true: More than half (54%) use English when listening to music, while 18% say they use Spanish. By the third generation, English use when listening to music rises to 74%, and Spanish use falls to 10%.

Watching Television

Among all Hispanics, more watch English-language television than Spanish-language programs—45% versus 28%. Meanwhile, 26% say they use both languages equally.

Across the generations, English use when watching television rises and Spanish use falls. Among immigrant Hispanics, nearly twice as many use Spanish when watching television as use English—40% versus 25%. One-third (34%) say they use English and Spanish equally when watching television.

By the second generation, 69% of Hispanics say they watch television in English, 17% say they use both English and Spanish equally, and 12% say they watch television mostly or only in Spanish. Among third-generation Hispanics, more than eight-in-ten (83%) say they use English when watching television. Some 11% say they use both languages. And just 5% of third-generation Hispanics say they watch television mainly in Spanish.

Thinking in English or Spanish

As with other forms of language use, more Latinos say they use Spanish than English when thinking—45% versus 37%. Meanwhile, some 16% say they use both languages when they think.

As might be expected, use of Spanish falls and use of English rises through the generations. Among immigrant Hispanics, two-thirds (65%) say they use Spanish when they think, 15% say they use English, and 18% say they use both English and Spanish. By the second generation, use of English rises to 63% and use of Spanish falls to 18%. By the third generation, eight-in-ten (80%) Latinos say they think in English, 13% say they think in Spanish, and 7% say they think in both languages equally.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Discrimination & Prejudice
• Hispanic/Latino Identity
• Immigration & Language Adoption
• Integration & Identity
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Racial & Ethnic Identity

Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

Rising numbers of americans say jews and muslims face a lot of discrimination, how u.s. muslims are experiencing the israel-hamas war, how u.s. jews are experiencing the israel-hamas war, striking findings from 2023, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Alcohol's Effects on Health

Research-based information on drinking and its impact.

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)

Alcohol facts and statistics.

Updated: 2024

Learn up-to-date facts and statistics on alcohol consumption and its impact in the United States and globally. Explore topics related to alcohol misuse and treatment, underage drinking, the effects of alcohol on the human body, and more.

Find up-to-date statistics on lifetime drinking, past-year drinking, past-month drinking, binge drinking, heavy alcohol use, and high-intensity drinking.

Learn how many people ages 12 to 20 engage in underage alcohol misuse in the United States and the impact it has.

Explore how many people ages 18 to 25 engage in alcohol misuse in the United States and the impact it has.

Find out how many people have alcohol use disorder in the United States across age groups and demographics.

Discover how many people with alcohol use disorder in the United States receive treatment across age groups and demographics.

Discover the effects that alcohol consumption has on the human body such as increased risk for diseases and injuries.

Learn statistics about alcohol use during pregnancy.

Discover the impact alcohol has on children living with a parent or caregiver with alcohol use disorder.

Explore statistics on alcohol-related deaths and emergency visits in the United States.

Learn more about the financial impact of alcohol misuse in the United States.

Learn more about impacts of alcohol misuse globally.

niaaa.nih.gov

An official website of the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

Select page language

• Bahasa Indonesia
• English - United States
• Español - México
• Português - Brasil
• Português - Portugal

• Learn Arabic
• Learn Chinese
• Learn Japanese
• Learn Russian
• Learn Danish
• Learn Korean
• Learn Slovenian
• Learn Dutch
• Learn Mongolian
• Learn Spanish
• Learn French
• Learn Norwegian
• Learn Swedish
• Learn German
• Learn Polish
• Learn Turkish
• Learn Icelandic
• Learn Portuguese
• Learn Yoruba
• Learn Italian
• Learn Indonesian
• Learn Greek
• Learn Hindi
• Learn Hebrew
• Learn Ukrainian
• Japanese (Kanji)
• Japanese (Romaji)
• Portuguese (BR)
• Portuguese (EU)
• Spanish (Mexico)
• Memrise blog

We push y ou to speak another language

"  As a beginner, I got thrown straight into learning practical vocab. It felt tough. But during my holiday in Portugal 
I didn't switch to English once.

How it works.

• 1. Set your level and tell us why you're learning
• 2. We teach you relevant words and phrases
• 3. Practice listening to those words with native speaker videos
• 4. Practice speaking with MemBot, your personalised AI language tutor

Why Memrise

Hear how the locals actually speak.

Watch 48,000+ conversations between real natives, so you can confidently understand their accents and listen to words and phrases they actually use.

Learn words relevant to your life

Watch videos based on your interests so you can learn things you want to talk about. 

Speak with our AI language tutor

Get unlimited speaking practice (and feedback) from MemBot, our AI language tutor. Build up confidence in private before speaking with natives for real.

What our learners are saying

"i just had a an honest to god conversation in french with a friend in quebec i stumbled a bit, but we only used a translator very rarely, and it’s because of memrise", "best app for getting experience listening and interacting with native speakers. listening to conversations by native speakers is so much better for actually being able to understand people".

Beth Williams

"My Fiancé is Portuguese so I wanted to learn their language to communicate easily. Over the year I can now string small sentences together. I don't think I could of done it without the help of Memrise."

Lewis Williams

Go Pro to accelerate!

• Official courses for 23 languages
• Video clips of phrases used in real life
• Gamified tests that train your language skills
• Personalised review plans based on proven memory techniques
• Sync across all your devices
• Access to all learning features
• Free from adverts

"Fluency is nothing more than mastering the 100 most important real-life conversations."

Recent Posts

We’ve updated our terms of use: action requested      .

• FRED Adds New Visa Data
• FRED Will Remove Wilshire Index Data on June 3, 2024
• Teaching the Economics of Monetary Policy Rules | Bring FRED into the Classroom | April 2024
• FRED & DDP Partnership

Dear FRED users,

We’ve updated our Terms of Use , which govern the services and content we provide.

As part of this update, we’re conducting a routine verification of email addresses associated with FRED accounts to ensure they’re current and valid. We kindly ask you to review the email address you use to log in to your FRED account. Accounts with invalid email addresses will be terminated after July 2024.

Here are some of the changes to the Terms of Use for easy reference:

• Prohibition to use FRED® Services or FRED® Content in connection with the development or training of any software program or system or machine learning, including, but not limited to, large language models, deep learning, generative artificial intelligence, or any other program or process commonly known as artificial intelligence.
• Prohibition to use the FRED® API to access any part of FRED® Services or FRED® Content to which you do not have authorization or permission to access or for which the Bank has prohibited or revoked your access, including through termination of your FRED® account.
• Prohibition to use the FRED® API to access FRED® Services or FRED® Content in connection with the development or training of any software program or system or machine learning, including, but not limited to, large language models, deep learning, generative artificial intelligence, or any other program or process commonly known as artificial intelligence.
• Prohibition to use the FRED® API in connection with storing, caching, or archiving any portion of FRED® Services or FRED® Content; providing any stored, cached, or archived portion of FRED® Services or FRED® Content to any third party; or incorporating any FRED® Content in any database, compilation, archive, cache, or other medium.
• Prohibition to use the FRED® API to engage in the wholesale downloading or accessing of FRED® Services or FRED® Content in violation of the FRED® Services Terms of Use.

Please review our updated terms carefully. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the updated terms. If you have any questions, please contact us here .

SUBSCRIBE TO THE RESEARCH DIVISION NEWSLETTER

Research division.

• Legal and Privacy

One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63102

Information for Visitors

World’s #1 Spanish omelet maker Grupo Palacios to formulate with The EVERY Co’s hen-less egg

June 17, 2024

Elaine Watson

Multinational food manufacturer Grupo Palacios has struck a commercial agreement with The EVERY Company —the first player to commercialize egg proteins produced by microbes instead of chickens—to incorporate its EVERY Egg liquid egg into its flagship Spanish omelets.

Palacios’ Spanish omelets (potato tortillas) are sold as ready-to-eat products (frozen and refrigerated) in various formats (whole, sliced, mini) in retail and foodservice locations in multiple countries.

In a press release announcing the deal, the Madrid-based company said it was “genuinely amazed” by the taste and versatility of EVERY Egg, adding that its “ability to seamlessly blend into a wide range of dishes while maintaining the authentic taste and texture of a high-quality hen egg is remarkable.”

Palacios started out in the meat industry but has since branched out to tortillas, pizzas, pastries, and plant-based products. It generated revenues of €380 million ($407 million) in 2023, has 11 production plants in Spain, one in the UK and another in the US, with products distributed in 50+ countries.

The EVERY Company VP and general manager Lance Lively told AgFunderNews : “Our intention with this collaboration is to ultimately be sold everywhere that Palacios currently sells its Spanish omelet products. This scale of distribution will of course take time, and the roll-out will depend on regulatory approvals and in-market success.”

He added: “We are in the process of applying for regulatory approval in the EU. Fortunately, Palacios is a major Spanish food company that exports its products to Europe, the US, Latin America, the Middle East, and East Asia. There is strong overlap between Palacios’ international presence and EVERY’s target markets.”

The Every Co portfolio: The EVERY Company engineers yeast ( Komagataella phaffii)  strains to express proteins found in eggs during a fermentation process requiring a source of sugars as the feedstock. To date, it has developed four ingredients:

• EVERY EggWhite ​: A 1-to-1 egg white replacer containing ovalbumin (the most prevalent protein in egg white) which delivers functional properties including aeration, whipping, gelling, binding, and foam stability.
• EVERY Egg : A liquid whole egg replacement containing EVERY EggWhite, plant-based oils, natural colors and flavors, fiber, and water.
• EVERY Protein ​: a highly soluble, ‘near-invisible’ protein bio-identical to a glycoprotein (ovomucoid) found in egg white, enabling “new-to-the-world, protein-boosted beverages and food products with a neutral sensory profile and optical clarity.”
• EVERY Pepsin ​: Animal-free pepsin (an enzyme traditionally sourced from pig stomachs), which is on hold as the firm prioritizes its other ingredients.

Recent deals with Unilever, Landish Foods

Founded by Arturo Elizondo and David Anchel in late 2014 as Clara Foods—California-based The EVERY Co has raised $233 million to date, a pretty jaw-dropping sum although markedly less than the staggering $840 million raised by Perfect Day  to try and get its animal-free dairy business off the ground.

The firm recently teamed up with Unilever-owned brand  The Vegetarian Butcher to incorporate EVERY EggWhite into selected meat alternatives as a clean label binder, while partners using its EVERY Protein soluble protein include Landish Foods  and Pulp Culture .

The startup, which has forged partnerships with ingredients giant Ingredion  for distribution and  AB InBev for manufacturing and scale up, has secured ‘no questions’ letters from the FDA in response to its GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) determinations for its proteins and has submitted applications under the Novel Foods process in the EU and the UK.

According to Elizondo, who spoke to AgFunderNews in February , the company’s  two priorities for 2024 are “onboarding additional manufacturing capacity and translating that into products in the marketplace.”

He added: “We’ve proven that our technology works at scale; we’re producing regularly in 100,000-L+ fermenters [via co-manufacturers] making metric tons of product. So it’s now a matter of continuing to dial up scale so we have enough capacity to ultimately bring the cost down.”

• alternative protein , animal-free , eggs , fermentation , microbial fermentation , precision fermentation , protein , spain , synthetic biology , USA

Join the Newsletter

Get the latest news & research from afn and agfunder in your inbox., related stories.

PTAB invalidates Impossible Foods patent following challenge by Motif FoodWorks, but denies requests to review 6 others

BREAKING: Perfect Day files $200m counterclaim accusing ex-partner of ‘gross negligence’ and ‘willful misconduct’

Mez Foods turns to mesquite as skyrocketing cocoa prices drive interest in choc alternatives

BREAKING: Meati Foods dealt blow in alt meat IP dispute with The Better Meat Co; judge slams firm’s ‘sandbagging,’ and ‘shenanigans’

Join the newsletter get the latest news and research from afn & agfunder in your inbox..

Sponsored Content

Farmers ‘ready and willing to try’ biological crop solutions. Only ‘strong business models’ need apply

Editor's pick.

CRISPR and the new era of precision plant breeding: In conversation with Pairwise CEO Dr. Tom Adams

Frankly speaking.

From a “scrappy” research project in Scotland to global Giga Farms: IGS former CEO David Farquhar reflects

Data snapshot.

From novelty to necessity? The evolution of insect farming

Investor insight.

GUEST ARTICLE Scaling up foodtech, the investor’s take: ‘The real potential of the space has gotten muddled’

Meet the founder.

Deeptech startup Sylvarum’s co-founder on improving food security in Asia by “electro hacking” plants

Research & data.

Who’s investing in climate adaptation for smallholder farmers?

©2013 - 2020 agfundernews. all rights reserved.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

China has become a scientific superpower

From plant biology to superconductor physics the country is at the cutting edge.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

I n the atrium of a research building at the Chinese Academy of Sciences ( CAS ) in Beijing is a wall of patents. Around five metres wide and two storeys high, the wall displays 192 certificates, positioned in neat rows and tastefully lit from behind. At ground level, behind a velvet rope, an array of glass jars contain the innovations that the patents protect: seeds.

CAS —the world’s largest research organisation—and institutions around China produce a huge amount of research into the biology of food crops. In the past few years Chinese scientists have discovered a gene that, when removed, boosts the length and weight of wheat grains, another that improves the ability of crops like sorghum and millet to grow in salty soils and one that can increase the yield of maize by around 10%. In autumn last year, farmers in Guizhou completed the second harvest of genetically modified giant rice that was developed by scientists at CAS .

The Chinese Communist Party ( CCP ) has made agricultural research—which it sees as key to ensuring the country’s food security —a priority for scientists. Over the past decade the quality and the quantity of crop research that China produces has grown immensely, and now the country is widely regarded as a leader in the field. According to an editor of a prestigious European plant-sciences journal, there are some months when half of the submissions can come from China.

A journey of a thousand miles

The rise of plant-science research is not unique in China. In 2019 The Economist surveyed the research landscape in the country and asked whether China could one day become a scientific superpower. Today, that question has been unequivocally answered: “yes”. Chinese scientists recently gained the edge in two closely watched measures of high-quality science, and the country’s growth in top-notch research shows no sign of slowing. The old science world order, dominated by America, Europe and Japan, is coming to an end.

One way to measure the quality of a country’s scientific research is to tally the number of high-impact papers produced each year—that is, publications that are cited most often by other scientists in their own, later work. In 2003 America produced 20 times more of these high-impact papers than China, according to data from Clarivate, a science analytics company (see chart 1). By 2013 America produced about four times the number of top papers and, in the most recent release of data, which examines papers from 2022, China had surpassed both America and the entire European Union ( EU ).

Metrics based on citations can be gamed, of course. Scientists can, and do, find ways to boost the number of times their paper is mentioned in other studies, and a recent working paper, by Qui Shumin, Claudia Steinwender and Pierre Azoulay, three economists, argues that Chinese researchers cite their compatriots far more than Western researchers do theirs. But China now leads the world on other benchmarks that are less prone to being gamed. It tops the Nature Index, created by the publisher of the same name, which counts the contributions to articles that appear in a set of prestigious journals. To be selected for publication, papers must be approved by a panel of peer reviewers who assess the study’s quality, novelty and potential for impact. When the index was first launched, in 2014, China came second, but its contribution to eligible papers was less than a third of America’s. By 2023 China had reached the top spot.

According to the Leiden Ranking of the volume of scientific research output, there are now six Chinese universities or institutions in the world top ten, and seven according to the Nature Index. They may not be household names in the West yet, but get used to hearing about Shanghai Jiao Tong, Zhejiang and Peking (Beida) Universities in the same breath as Cambridge, Harvard and ETH Zurich. “Tsinghua is now the number one science and technology university in the world,” says Simon Marginson, a professor of higher education at Oxford University. “That’s amazing. They’ve done that in a generation.”

Today China leads the world in the physical sciences, chemistry and Earth and environmental sciences, according to both the Nature Index and citation measures (see chart 2). But America and Europe still have substantial leads in both general biology and medical sciences. “Engineering is the ultimate Chinese discipline in the modern period,” says Professor Marginson, “I think that’s partly about military technology and partly because that’s what you need to develop a nation.”

Applied research is a Chinese strength. The country dominates publications on perovskite solar panels, for example, which offer the possibility of being far more efficient than conventional silicon cells at converting sunlight into electricity. Chinese chemists have developed a new way to extract hydrogen from seawater using a specialised membrane to separate out pure water, which can then be split by electrolysis. In May 2023 it was announced that the scientists, in collaboration with a state-owned Chinese energy company, had developed a pilot floating hydrogen farm off the country’s south-eastern coast.

China also now produces more patents than any other country, although many are for incremental tweaks to designs, as opposed to truly original inventions. New developments tend to spread and be adopted more slowly in China than in the West. But its strong industrial base, combined with cheap energy, means that it can quickly spin up large-scale production of physical innovations like materials. “That’s where China really has an advantage on Western countries,” says Jonathan Bean, CEO of Materials Nexus, a British firm that uses AI to discover new materials.

The country is also signalling its scientific prowess in more conspicuous ways. Earlier this month, China’s Chang’e-6 robotic spacecraft touched down in a gigantic crater on the far side of the Moon, scooped up some samples of rock, planted a Chinese flag and set off back towards Earth. If it successfully returns to Earth at the end of the month, it will be the first mission to bring back samples from this hard-to-reach side of the Moon.

First, sharpen your tools

The reshaping of Chinese science has been achieved by focusing on three areas: money, equipment and people. In real terms, China’s spending on research and development ( R & D ) has grown 16-fold since 2000. According to the most recent data from the OECD , from 2021, China still lagged behind America on overall R & D spending, dishing out $668bn, compared with $806bn for America at purchasing-power parity. But in terms of spending by universities and government institutions only, China has nudged ahead. In these places America still spends around 50% more on basic research, accounting for costs, but China is splashing the cash on applied research and experimental development (see chart 3).

Money is meticulously directed into strategic areas. In 2006 the CCP published its vision for how science should develop over the next 15 years. Blueprints for science have since been included in the CCP ’s five-year development plans. The current plan, published in 2021, aims to boost research in quantum technologies, AI , semiconductors, neuroscience, genetics and biotechnology, regenerative medicine, and exploration of “frontier areas” like deep space, deep oceans and Earth’s poles.

Creating world-class universities and government institutions has also been a part of China’s scientific development plan. Initiatives like “Project 211”, the “985 programme” and the “China Nine League” gave money to selected labs to develop their research capabilities. Universities paid staff bonuses—estimated at an average of $44,000 each, and up to a whopping $165,000—if they published in high-impact international journals.

Building the workforce has been a priority. Between 2000 and 2019, more than 6m Chinese students left the country to study abroad, according to China’s education ministry. In recent years they have flooded back, bringing their newly acquired skills and knowledge with them. Data from the OECD suggest that, since the late 2000s, more scientists have been returning to the country than leaving. China now employs more researchers than both America and the entire EU .

Many of China’s returning scientists, often referred to as “sea turtles” (a play on the Chinese homonym haigui , meaning “to return from abroad”) have been drawn home by incentives. One such programme launched in 2010, the “Youth Thousand Talents”, offered researchers under 40 one-off bonuses of up to 500,000 yuan (equivalent to roughly $150,000 at purchasing-power parity) and grants of up to 3m yuan to get labs up and running back home. And it worked. A study published in Science last year found that the scheme brought back high-calibre young researchers—they were, on average, in the most productive 15% of their peers (although the real superstar class tended to turn down offers). Within a few years, thanks to access to more resources and academic manpower, these returnees were lead scientists on 2.5 times more papers than equivalent researchers who had remained in America.

As well as pull, there has been a degree of push. Chinese scientists working abroad have been subject to increased suspicion in recent years. In 2018 America launched the China Initiative, a largely unsuccessful attempt to root out Chinese spies from industry and academia. There have also been reports of students being deported because of their association with China’s “military-civilian fusion strategy”. A recent survey of current and former Chinese students studying in America found that the share who had experienced racial abuse or discrimination was rising.

The availability of scientists in China means that, for example in quantum computing, some of the country’s academic labs are more like commercial labs in the West, in terms of scale. “They have research teams of 20, 30, even 40 people working on the same experiments, and they make really good progress,” says Christian Andersen, a quantum researcher at Delft University. In 2023 researchers working in China broke the record for the number of quantum bits, or qubits, entangled inside a quantum computer.

China has also splurged on scientific kit. In 2019, when The Economist last surveyed the state of the country’s scientific research, it already had an enviable inventory of flashy hardware including supercomputers, the world’s largest filled-aperture radio telescope and an underground dark-matter detector. The list has only grown since then. The country is now home to the world’s most sensitive ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray detector (which has recently been used to test aspects of Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity), the world’s strongest steady-state magnetic field (which can probe the properties of materials) and soon will have one of the world’s most sensitive neutrino detectors (which will be used to work out which type of these fundamental subatomic particles has the highest mass). Europe and America have plenty of cool kit of their own, but China is rapidly adding hardware.

Individual labs in China’s top institutions are also well equipped. Niko McCarty, a journalist and former researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was recently given a tour of synthetic biology labs in China, was struck by how, in academic institutions, “the machines are just more impressive and more expansive” than in America. At the Advanced Biofoundry at the Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, which the country hopes will be the centre of China’s answer to Silicon Valley, Mr McCarty described an “amazing building with four floors of robots”. As Chinese universities fill with state-of-the-art equipment and elite researchers, and salaries become increasingly competitive, Western institutions look less appealing to young and ambitious Chinese scientists. “Students in China don’t think about America as some “scientific Mecca” in the same way their advisers might have done,” said Mr McCarty.

Take AI , for example. In 2019 just 34% of Chinese students working in the field stayed in the country for graduate school or work. By 2022 that number was 58%, according to data from the AI talent tracker by MacroPolo, an American think-tank (in America the figure for 2022 was around 98%). China now contributes to around 40% of the world’s research papers on AI , compared with around 10% for America and 15% for the EU and Britain combined. One of the most highly cited research papers of all time, demonstrating how deep neural networks could be trained on image recognition, was written by AI researchers working in China, albeit for Microsoft, an American company. “China’s AI research is world-class,” said Zachary Arnold, an AI analyst at the Georgetown Centre for Emerging Security and Technology. “In areas like computer vision and robotics, they have a significant lead in research publications.”

Growth in the quality and quantity of Chinese science looks unlikely to stop anytime soon. Spending on science and technology research is still increasing—the government has announced a 10% increase in funding in 2024. And the country is training an enormous number of young scientists. In 2020 Chinese universities awarded 1.4m engineering degrees, seven times more than America did. China has now educated, at undergraduate level, 2.5 times more of the top-tier AI researchers than America has. And by 2025, Chinese universities are expected to produce nearly twice as many P h D graduates in science and technology as America.

To see further, ascend another floor

Although China is producing more top-tier work, it still produces a vast amount of lower-quality science too. On average, papers from China tend to have lower impact, as measured by citations, than those from America, Britain or the EU . And while the chosen few universities have advanced, mid-level universities have been left behind. China’s second-tier institutions still produce work that is of relatively poor quality compared with their equivalents in Europe or America. “While China has fantastic quality at the top level, it’s on a weak base,” explains Caroline Wagner, professor of science policy at Ohio State University.

When it comes to basic, curiosity-driven research (rather than applied) China is still playing catch-up—the country publishes far fewer papers than America in the two most prestigious science journals, Nature and Science . This may partly explain why China seems to punch below its weight in the discovery of completely new technologies. Basic research is particularly scant within Chinese companies, creating a gap between the scientists making discoveries and the industries that could end up using them. “For more original innovation, that might be a minus,” says Xu Xixiang, chief scientist at LONG i Green Energy Technology, a Chinese solar company.

Incentives to publish papers have created a market for fake scientific publications. A study published earlier this year in the journal Research Ethics , featured anonymous interviews from Chinese academics, one of whom said he had “no choice but to commit [research] misconduct”, to keep up with pressures to publish and retain his job. “Citation cartels” have emerged, where groups of researchers band together to write low-quality papers that cite each other’s work in an effort to drive up their metrics. In 2020 China’s science agencies announced that such cash-for-publication schemes should end and, in 2021, the country announced a nationwide review of research misconduct. That has led to improvements—the rate at which Chinese researchers cite themselves, for example, is falling, according to research published in 2023. And China’s middle-ranking universities are slowly catching up with their Western equivalents, too.

The areas where America and Europe still hold the lead are, therefore, unlikely to be safe for long. Biological and health sciences rely more heavily on deep subject-specific knowledge and have historically been harder for China to “bring back and accelerate”, says Tim Dafforn, a professor of biotechnology at University of Birmingham and former adviser to Britain’s department for business. But China’s profile is growing in these fields. Although America currently produces roughly four times more highly influential papers in clinical medicine, in many areas China is producing the most papers that cite this core research, a sign of developing interest that presages future expansion. “On the biology side, China is growing remarkably quickly,” says Jonathan Adams, chief scientist at the Institute for Scientific Information at Clarivate. “Its ability to switch focus into a new area is quite remarkable.”

The rise of Chinese science is a double-edged sword for Western governments. China’s science system is inextricably linked with its state and armed forces—many Chinese universities have labs explicitly working on defence and several have been accused of engaging in espionage or cyber-attacks. China has also been accused of intellectual-property theft and increasingly stringent regulations have made it more difficult for international collaborators to take data out of the country; notoriously, in 2019, the country cut off access to American-funded work on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There are also cases of Chinese researchers failing to adhere to the ethical standards expected by Western scientists.

Despite the concerns, Chinese collaborations are common for Western researchers. Roughly a third of papers on telecommunications by American authors involve Chinese collaborators. In imaging science, remote sensing, applied chemistry and geological engineering, the figures are between 25% and 30%. In Europe the numbers are lower, around 10%, but still significant. These partnerships are beneficial for both countries. China tends to collaborate more in areas where it is already strong like materials and physics. A preprint study, released last year, found that for AI research, having a co-author from America or China was equally beneficial to authors from the other country, conferring on average 75% more citations.

Several notable successes have come from working together, too. During the covid-19 pandemic a joint venture between Oxford University’s Engineering Department and the Oxford Suzhou Centre for Advanced Research developed a rapid covid test that was used across British airports. In 2015 researchers at University of Cardiff and South China Agricultural University identified a gene that made bacteria resistant to the antibiotic colistin. Following this, China, the biggest consumer of the drug, banned its use in animal feed, and levels of colistin resistance in both animals and humans declined.

In America and Europe, political pressure is limiting collaborations with China. In March, America’s Science and Technology Agreement with China, which states that scientists from both countries can collaborate on topics of mutual benefit, was quietly renewed for a further six months. Although Beijing appears keen to renew the 45-year-old agreement, many Republicans fear that collaboration with China is helping the country achieve its national-security goals. In Europe, with the exception of environmental and climate projects, Chinese universities have been effectively barred from accessing funding through the Horizon programme, a huge European research initiative.

There are also concerns among scientists that China is turning inwards. The country has explicit aims to become self-reliant in many areas of science and technology and also shift away from international publications as a way of measuring research output. Many researchers cannot talk to the press—finding sources in China for this story was challenging. One Chinese plant scientist, who asked to remain anonymous, said that she had to seek permission a year in advance to attend overseas conferences. “It’s contradictory—on the one hand, they set restrictions so that scientists don’t have freedoms like being able to go abroad to communicate with their colleagues. But on the other hand, they don’t want China to fall behind.”

Live until old, learn until old

The overwhelming opinion of scientists in China and the West is that collaboration must continue or, better, increase. And there is room to do more. Though China’s science output has grown dramatically, the share that is conducted with international collaborators has remained stable at around 20%—Western scientists tend to have far more international collaborations. Western researchers could pay more attention to the newest science from China, too. Data from a study published last year in Nature Human Behaviour showed that, for work of equivalent quality, Chinese scientists cite Western papers far more than vice versa. Western scientists rarely visit, work or study in China, depriving them of opportunities to learn from Chinese colleagues in the way Chinese scientists have done so well in the West.

Closing the door to Chinese students and researchers wishing to come to Western labs would also be disastrous for Western science. Chinese researchers form the backbone of many departments in top American and European universities. In 2022 more of the top-tier AI researchers working in America hailed from China than from America. The West’s model of science currently depends on a huge number of students, often from overseas, to carry out most day-to-day research.

There is little to suggest that the Chinese scientific behemoth will not continue growing stronger. China’s ailing economy may eventually force the CCP to slow spending on research, and if the country were to become completely cut off from the Western science community its research would suffer. But neither of these looks imminent. In 2019 we also asked if research could flourish in an authoritarian system. Perhaps over time its limits will become clear. But for now, and at least for the hard sciences, the answer is that it can thrive. “I think it’d be very unwise to call limits on the Chinese miracle,” says Prof Marginson. “Because it has had no limits up until now.” ■

Curious about the world? To enjoy our mind-expanding science coverage, sign up to  Simply Science , our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.

Explore more

This article appeared in the Science & technology section of the print edition under the headline “Soaring dragons”

From the June 15th 2024 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

More from Science and technology

Only 5% of therapies tested on animals are approved for human use

More rigorous experiments could improve those odds

The secret to taking better penalties

Practise with an augmented-reality headset

Like people, elephants call each other by name

And anthropoexceptionalism takes another tumble

Elon Musk’s Starship makes a test flight without exploding

Crucially, the upper stage of the giant rocket survived atmospheric re-entry

Zany ideas to slow polar melting are gathering momentum

Giant curtains to keep warm water away from glaciers strike some as too risky

The quest to build robots that look and behave like humans

The engineering challenges involved are fiendish, but worth tackling

• Health A to Z
• Alternative Medicine
• Blood Disorders
• Bone and Joint
• Cardiovascular Diseases
• Child Health
• Coronavirus
• Dental Care
• Digestive System
• Disabilities
• Drug Center
• Ear, Nose, and Throat
• Environmental Health
• Exercise And Fitness
• First Aid and Emergencies
• General Health
• Health Technology
• Hearing Loss
• Hypertension
• Infectious Disease
• LGBTQ Health
• Liver Health
• Men's Health
• Mental Health
• Pain Management
• Public Health
• Pulmonology
• Senior Health
• Sexual Health
• Skin Health
• Women's Health
• News For Medical Professionals
• Our Products
• Consumer News
• Physician's Briefing
• HealthDay TV
• Wellness Library
• HealthDay Living
• Conference Coverage
• Custom Products
• Health Writing
• Health Editing
• Video Production
• Medical Review

Just 1 in 20 Animal Studies Yield Treatments That Make it to Humans

Key Takeaways

Only one in 20 animal studies result in treatments approved for human use

That’s despite the fact that positive results are replicated in human clinical trials 86% of the time

Poor study design could be the culprit, researchers say

FRIDAY, June 14, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Animal studies are often considered a first step in finding new drugs and treatments for human diseases, but a new review has discovered that precious few actually produce real-world therapies.

Only 5% of therapies tested in animals wind up being approved by regulators for human use, according to an analysis of 122 articles involving 54 different diseases and 367 potential treatments.

That’s despite the fact that 86% of the time positive results in animal studies are replicated in human clinical trials, researchers said.

“Although the consistency between animal and early clinical studies was high, only a minority of therapeutic interventions achieved regulatory approval,” concluded the research team led by Dr. Benjamin Ineichen , a neurologist with the University of Zurich in Switzerland.

Research tends to follow a well-laid path -- animal studies followed by early studies in humans, followed by randomized controlled clinical trials to provide solid evidence of benefit. Trial results are then submitted to regulators to have the therapy approved for humans.

About 50% of animal studies make the transition into early human studies, which are meant to show feasibility, researchers found.

But only 40% make it to randomized controlled trials, and just 5% are approved by regulators.

“Drawing from the field of clinical neurology, many therapies that have shown promise in animal studies and early trials reported as successful candidates herein, such as melatonin and mesenchymal stem cells for stroke, have not yet become standard clinical practice,” the researchers said.

“A similar pattern can be seen in other neurological diseases like Alzheimer’s disease and spinal cord injury, where there are several therapies with promising preclinical results but limited practical translation,” the team added.

The average time periods for reaching the different stages were five years from animal to human study, seven years to randomized controlled trials, and 10 years to regulatory approval, researchers found.

The new review was published June 13 in the journal PLOS Biology .

One potential explanation is that the requirements of clinical trials and regulatory approval are too strict, “causing many potentially valuable treatments to be left behind,” the researchers noted.

But they said it’s more likely that poor and inconsistent design in animal and human studies result in unreliable findings. As a result, these potential therapies don’t proceed to clinical trials.

“To improve animal-to-human translation, we advocate for enhanced study design robustness of animal and human research, which will not only benefit experimental animals but also affected patients,” the researchers said in a journal news release.

More information

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has more about the drug development and approval process .

SOURCE: PLOS , news release, June 13, 2024

What This Means For You

Improvements in study design for animal research could lead to more cutting-edge medical treatments finding their way to human patients.

Related Stories

This device is too small

If you're on a Galaxy Fold, consider unfolding your phone or viewing it in full screen to best optimize your experience.

• Personal Finance

5 Ways I Save Money at Costco -- Without Ever Setting Foot in the Store

Published on June 18, 2024

By: Kristi Waterworth

• Almost anything you can buy at Costco, and a lot of things you can only buy online, are easy to order and have delivered to your door.
• Costco's mail-order pharmacy can save you time and money.
• Costco Next and Costco Services are great ways to take advantage of the Costco umbrella without buying in bulk.

Check out our pick for the best cash back credit card of 2024

If you've ever seen anything from The Ascent about Costco, you know we love the place. And why not? It's got everything you might ever need, and what they don't have, you clearly don't need. But I have a confession to make: I don't like going inside Costco.

Fortunately for me, I don't have to. I never have to set foot inside Costco in order to save more than enough money to justify my membership fee.

Wondering how you, too, can avoid the crowds and still save a bundle? Here are some tips for you.

1. Use Costco's mail order pharmacy

Costco's mail order pharmacy offers the same discounts to members who use the in-store pharmacy. It's famous for being cheaper than other retail pharmacies, and that's no different for the mail order option. You'll simply register online, transfer your prescriptions, give them your insurance information, and you're off to the races. Hot tip: This also applies to your pet's prescriptions, so if they have a lot of pharmaceutical needs, you can have Costco handle Fido and Fluffy's meds, as well.

2. Watch for Costco fliers in the mail

Costco sends me a flier every so often with the newest and greatest deals they have to offer. Usually I discard them without even looking at them, but back in January, it caught my eye that the protein powder I buy was on the list of specials. And boy, was it special. At first glance, I thought it was the same price as what I was paying on Amazon, but after looking a little closer, I realized the container was much bigger (a size that's not even available elsewhere).

This is basically all I have for dinner most days, so you can imagine how much of my budget is spent on this product. Being able to get it for 6% less per pound was a huge budget saver, and now that I know it's offered through Costco, I can just order it online and have it delivered. Easy peasy.

3. Use Instacart through Costco.com

Of course, you can mail order most things (though not everything) through Costco.com, but did you know you can also get your groceries (and other items) delivered via Instacart through Costco.com with members-only pricing? It's true. You can even get a rotisserie chicken brought right to your door.

There is a minimum of a $35 order required, and prices are (very) slightly higher than they are in the store, but there are no additional charges from Instacart for Costco Same-Day besides a tip for your driver.

4. Keep an eye on online-only savings

Costco.com is actually a bit of a treasure trove if you have the time to dig through it. Not only does it offer most of the products that are in the warehouse for delivery via either shipping or Instacart, it has specials like its online-only savings that rotate each month.

Though not exclusively, most of these items are big-ticket purchases, with deep discounts for members. For example, in June, you can get an Aquaterra Spa with a $2,000 discount or an 85-inch television for $1,600, both with free delivery.

5. Check out Costco's partner program

Costco has partnerships with all kinds of other companies, through both the Costco Next program and the Costco Services program.

Costco Next connects members with the online shops of some of the company's most reliable brands that literally offer everything from cookware to cosmetics, clothing, sporting goods, and even sheds, and hooks them up with a members-only discount, too.

Costco Services are partner offers specifically geared to members that provide discounts on all sorts of things you might need, from insurance to home improvement to new cars (seriously). Members get access to these relationships established by Costco with providers with exceptional reputations that save you money and time, without ever setting foot inside the warehouse!

You, too, can save money at Costco without ever going inside

It's true -- you never have to go to Costco in person to save money. It's really kind of a great deal for your secret inner introvert, or the outer one that you wear around every day. Although you may pay a tiny bit extra for the convenience of having Costco brought to you, you're still generally going to save money over the competition on a huge range of goods and services simply by being a member.

Alert: our top-rated cash back card now has 0% intro APR until 2025

This credit card is not just good – it’s so exceptional that our experts use it personally. It features a lengthy 0% intro APR period, a cash back rate of up to 5%, and all somehow for no annual fee! Click here to read our full review for free and apply in just 2 minutes.

Our Research Expert

Kristi Waterworth is a financial journalist located in the Missouri Ozarks. When she’s not writing about real estate or personal finance, she’s committing shenanigans with her four dogs.

Share this page

We're firm believers in the Golden Rule, which is why editorial opinions are ours alone and have not been previously reviewed, approved, or endorsed by included advertisers. The Ascent, a Motley Fool service, does not cover all offers on the market. The Ascent has a dedicated team of editors and analysts focused on personal finance, and they follow the same set of publishing standards and editorial integrity while maintaining professional separation from the analysts and editors on other Motley Fool brands.

Related Articles

By: Cole Tretheway | Published on June 7, 2024

By: Lyle Daly | Published on June 5, 2024

By: Christy Bieber | Published on June 5, 2024

By: Lyle Daly | Published on June 4, 2024

The Ascent is a Motley Fool service that rates and reviews essential products for your everyday money matters.

Copyright © 2018 - 2024 The Ascent. All rights reserved.