Background
A leading publisher of scientific research wanted to understand how organisations license the work published in peer-reviewed journals and databases — and, more importantly, what happens to that literature afterwards: how it is analysed, operationalised, and translated into research, decisions and downstream outcomes.
Sitting underneath that was a sharper question. AI is reshaping both how scientific content is used and what organisations expect to be able to do with it, and the publisher needed a clear view of what that means for licensing.
The audience was the difficult part. The people who can answer properly are those who understand both sides at once — the buying and licensing decision, and how researchers actually use the content day to day. That combination is uncommon, and it does not map neatly onto a job title.
Our Approach
We recruited across the USA and Europe for in-depth interviews, split across two segments. The primary group were information buyers and content procurement professionals in corporate settings — the people responsible for licensing scientific content platforms. The secondary group were heads of R&D and lead scientists, increasingly drawn into licensing decisions where AI rights are concerned, who brought the user perspective and the ability to look ahead.
We also built in a deliberate spread of research intensity: high-intensity organisations in pharma and biotech, medium-intensity in chemicals, materials science, energy and advanced manufacturing, and variable-intensity in medical devices, food and technology. Alongside existing platform users we recruited users of competing platforms and organisations that had never subscribed at all — the group most likely to reveal unmet demand for AI rights.
Outcome
Recruitment completed in July 2026 and the project closed in August 2026. Fifteen depth interviews were delivered across both segments and the full industry mix, in the USA and Europe. The engagement went beyond fieldwork: we analysed the interviews, produced a comprehensive report, and presented the findings in person to a group of the client's decision-makers and sales colleagues.
Putting the research in front of the commercial team as well as the decision-makers mattered here. The people who sell licences hear the objections first, and a report that only reaches the strategists tends to stay theoretical.
Key takeaway: Licensing questions sit between two audiences that rarely meet — the people who buy the content and the people who use it. Getting both into the same study is what turns an interesting finding into one a client can act on.