The question that haunts every serious researcher at some point in their career is not whether their work is valuable, but whether it will ever matter beyond the confines of academic discourse. We have all seen brilliant research papers that answer critical questions, propose elegant solutions, or reveal profound truths about our world, only to be read by a handful of specialists and then fade into the vast archive of human knowledge, never to influence the decisions that shape our collective future.
This is not a failure of the research itself. It is a failure of the system we have built around it. For decades, the scientific publishing model has operated on a simple premise: produce rigorous research, subject it to peer review, publish it in a journal, and trust that those who need it will find it. But this passive approach has created a widening gap between discovery and application, between what we know and what we do. The world faces challenges of unprecedented complexity, from climate change to healthcare crises, from technological disruption to social inequality, and while our laboratories and universities generate insights that could address these challenges, too often those insights remain disconnected from the leaders, institutions, and decision-makers who have the power to implement them.
At The Ilantic Journal, we have made a deliberate choice to step beyond the traditional boundaries of scientific publishing. We believe that our role is not simply to validate and archive research, but to actively facilitate its journey from conception to real-world impact. This is why we have committed ourselves to building bridges between researchers and the leaders who can transform their ideas into action. This is not about abandoning academic rigor or compromising the integrity of the scientific process. It is about recognizing that knowledge, no matter how profound, achieves its full potential only when it reaches the hands of those who can apply it to solve actual problems affecting actual lives.
The Gap We Cannot Ignore
Every year, millions of research papers are published across thousands of journals. They represent countless hours of intellectual labor, immense financial investment, and the dedicated efforts of some of the brightest minds in our world. Yet study after study suggests that the majority of this research never translates into practical applications. Some estimates indicate that up to 85% of research investment is wasted due to poor experimental design, lack of replication, or simply because no one beyond a small academic circle ever engages with the findings.
But perhaps the most significant waste occurs not because the research is flawed, but because it never reaches the people who could use it. A breakthrough in materials science might revolutionize construction, but if civil engineers and urban planners never learn about it, buildings will continue to be constructed using outdated methods. A novel approach to organizational management might transform how companies operate, but if it remains confined to business school journals, corporations will never implement it. A discovery in behavioral economics might inform more effective public policy, but if policymakers never encounter it in a form they can understand and apply, legislation will continue to be crafted without its insights.
This gap between knowledge and application is not inevitable. It is the result of structural barriers that have evolved within our academic and professional ecosystems. Researchers are trained to communicate primarily with other researchers, using specialized language and focusing on questions that matter within their disciplines but may seem abstract to practitioners. Leaders and decision-makers, meanwhile, operate under time constraints and practical pressures that leave little room for deep engagement with academic literature. They need solutions they can implement now, while research papers often emphasize nuance, complexity, and the need for further study.
Moreover, the incentive structures in academia have traditionally rewarded publication volume and citation counts within the research community, not real-world impact. A scientist might transform an entire industry with a single applied innovation, but if that work does not result in publications in high-impact journals, it may not advance their academic career. This creates a situation where brilliant minds are incentivized to talk primarily to each other rather than to the world that could benefit most from their insights.
When a 35-Year-Old Research Paper Saved Google's Future
The year was 2013, and Google faced an existential challenge. Their engineers had run a sobering calculation: if just 3% of users began using voice search for three minutes per day, the computational demand would require Google to double its entire global data center infrastructure. The traditional solution of simply buying more graphics processing units from Nvidia was economically unfeasible. Google needed a fundamentally different approach.
What happened next illustrates perfectly why connecting research to practitioners matters, and why the gap between academic publication and real-world application can sometimes span decades.
Norman Jouppi, who would become the technical lead for Google's Tensor Processing Unit project, and his team faced an impossible timeline. They had fifteen months to design, build, test, and deploy custom silicon that could handle neural network inference at unprecedented scale and efficiency. Developing an entirely new chip architecture from scratch in that timeframe was simply not realistic.
Then someone on the team remembered a research paper. Not a recent paper from a hot new conference, but a 1978 publication from Carnegie Mellon University titled "Systolic Arrays (for VLSI)" by H.T. Kung and Charles E. Leiserson. The paper was thirty-five years old, written when the personal computer revolution was just beginning and most of the Google team members were not yet born.
Kung and Leiserson had proposed a radical idea: instead of moving data back and forth between memory and processors in the traditional computing model, what if you could create a network of simple processors arranged in an array, where data would flow rhythmically through the system like blood pumping through arteries? They called it a systolic array, drawing the metaphor from the systolic contractions of the heart.
The original 1978 paper was theoretical, focused on solving the fabrication limitations of that era's very-large-scale integration technology. The specific problems Kung and Leiserson were addressing had long since been solved by advances in chip manufacturing. Most computer scientists had moved on to other architectural approaches. The paper sat in university libraries and digital archives, cited occasionally in academic contexts but largely absent from practical engineering discussions.
But Google's team recognized something crucial: while the original motivation had become obsolete, the fundamental insight remained powerful. Kung and Leiserson had mathematically proven that systolic arrays could perform matrix operations, the core computational task in neural networks, with extraordinary efficiency. The architecture minimized data movement, maximized parallel computation, and used remarkably simple processing elements that could be packed densely on a chip.
Within fifteen months, Google had designed and deployed the first Tensor Processing Unit based on this systolic array architecture. The TPU delivered performance improvements of 15 to 30 times over contemporary central processing units and graphics processing units for neural network inference, with energy efficiency gains of 30 to 80 times. It was not an incremental improvement; it was a technological leap that would help define the next decade of artificial intelligence development.
The story becomes even more remarkable when you consider the human connections involved. One of H.T. Kung's former students at Harvard was Cliff Young, who became the chief architect of Google's TPU. The knowledge passed from professor to student, from theoretical paper to practical implementation, across decades and contexts. Young and his colleagues did not simply copy Kung and Leiserson's work; they adapted it, extended it, and applied it to a problem that did not exist when the original paper was written.
Today, systolic arrays are a foundational component not just of Google's TPUs but of neural network accelerators across the industry. A theoretical contribution from 1978 has become essential infrastructure for the artificial intelligence revolution of the 2020s. DeepMind's AlphaGo, which defeated world champion Lee Sedol in 2016, ran on just four TPUs. The language models, image recognition systems, and recommendation engines that billions of people interact with daily all depend, in some way, on the insights from that decades-old research paper.
This story reveals several profound truths about the relationship between research and impact. First, the value of research is not always immediately apparent. When Kung and Leiserson published their paper in 1978, they could not have imagined smartphones, cloud computing, or neural networks as we know them today. They were solving the problems visible from their vantage point in history. Yet their work contained insights that would prove essential decades later for challenges they could not have predicted.
Second, impact often requires active connection and translation. The systolic array paper did not automatically solve Google's problem in 2013. It took engineers who were familiar with both the academic literature and the practical challenge, who could recognize the applicability of old research to new problems, who could adapt theoretical concepts to manufacturing realities. This kind of cross-pollination between academic knowledge and industrial need rarely happens by accident.
Third, the ecosystem matters enormously. The paper could influence Google's work because it had been published, preserved in academic archives, taught to students like Cliff Young, and kept alive in the collective memory of the computer science community. If it had remained in a filing cabinet, if it had been published in an obscure venue without peer review, if it had not been part of the curriculum at major universities, its insights might have been lost or might have needed to be rediscovered at great cost.
We do not tell this story to suggest that all research should be judged by its immediate practical applications, or that theoretical work is only valuable if it eventually powers billion-dollar companies. The relationship between knowledge and application is complex, non-linear, and often spans timeframes that make planning difficult. Some research that seems immediately practical leads nowhere, while some apparently abstract theoretical work transforms industries.
Rather, we tell this story to illustrate what becomes possible when research is both excellent and connected to the broader world. Google's engineers could solve their computational crisis not just because Kung and Leiserson had done brilliant work, but because that work had been published, preserved, taught, discussed, and made accessible. The systolic array concept was available to be discovered when someone needed it, even thirty-five years after its initial publication.
This is the kind of ecosystem we aspire to build at The Ilantic Journal. We want research to be not just published but actively connected to the people and institutions that might benefit from it. We want insights to be preserved and propagated in ways that make them discoverable when relevant problems emerge. We want researchers to understand not just the immediate applications of their work but its potential to inform solutions to challenges we cannot yet imagine.
The gap between 1978 and 2013 in the TPU story was bridged by institutional memory, academic networks, and curious engineers willing to dig through old papers looking for answers. But such bridges are fragile and depend on fortunate coincidences. How many other papers contain insights that could solve pressing problems but remain undiscovered because the right connection was never made? How many researchers have developed solutions that practitioners desperately need but never learned about? How many challenges persist because the knowledge to address them exists somewhere, in some journal, but the path from that knowledge to action was never built?
These are the questions that motivate us. We believe that the time between theoretical insight and practical impact can and should be shortened. We believe that researchers and practitioners should not have to rely on serendipity and decades-long delays to find each other. We believe that journals can and should play an active role in ensuring that valuable research reaches those who can use it, not thirty-five years later, but as quickly as possible while maintaining appropriate rigor and validation.
The TPU story had a happy ending because Google had the resources to search through decades of academic literature, to hire researchers who bridged theoretical and practical knowledge, and to invest in risky, ambitious engineering projects. But not every organization has these advantages. Not every critical problem gets solved by a fortunate rediscovery of old papers. If we want research to consistently and reliably improve the world, we cannot depend on such contingencies. We need systematic, intentional efforts to connect knowledge with application.
That is what we are building. That is our commitment. And that is why every paper we publish, we also ask ourselves: who needs to know about this? Who could use these insights? How can we ensure that when the next major challenge emerges, the relevant research is not gathering dust in an archive but is actively available to those searching for solutions? The next breakthrough should not have to wait thirty-five years.
Our Commitment to Building Bridges
We founded The Ilantic Journal with a conviction that scientific publishing can and must evolve beyond its traditional role. We see ourselves not merely as gatekeepers of academic quality, but as active facilitators of knowledge transfer and practical implementation. Our mission is to ensure that the research we publish does not end its journey on our pages, but begins a new phase of life as it moves into the hands of those who can apply it.
This commitment manifests in several concrete ways. First, we actively cultivate relationships with leaders across various sectors: business executives, policymakers, nonprofit directors, technology innovators, healthcare administrators, and others who make decisions that affect millions of lives. We do not wait for them to stumble upon relevant research; we bring that research to them in formats and contexts that make it accessible and actionable.
Second, we work directly with our authors to help them articulate the practical implications of their work. Many researchers are so immersed in the technical details of their methods and findings that they struggle to communicate why their work matters to non-specialists. We provide support in translating complex research into clear narratives about real-world problems and solutions. This is not about dumbing down the science; it is about making excellent science comprehensible and relevant to those who can use it.
Third, we create forums and opportunities for direct interaction between researchers and practitioners. We organize symposiums, workshops, and roundtable discussions where scientists can present their findings to audiences of industry leaders, investors, and policymakers. These events are not traditional academic conferences where researchers present to other researchers; they are collaborative spaces where different forms of expertise meet and cross-pollinate. A researcher might discover that their theoretical work has applications they never imagined, while a business leader might find solutions to problems that have plagued their industry for years.
Fourth, we maintain networks of advisors and experts who help us identify research with high potential for practical application. These advisors come from diverse backgrounds and bring different perspectives on what kinds of knowledge are needed in various sectors. They help us recognize when a piece of research, even if it seems purely theoretical, contains insights that could transform practice in a particular field.
Finally, we are building a platform that goes beyond traditional publishing. We envision a dynamic ecosystem where research papers are starting points for ongoing conversations, collaborations, and projects. We want authors to be able to update their work as it evolves, to share supplementary materials and data, to engage with readers and practitioners, and to document the real-world applications that emerge from their research. We want to create a living archive of knowledge that grows and adapts rather than simply accumulating.
The Question of Mission and Identity
This approach inevitably raises important questions about the role and identity of scientific journals. Should journals focus solely on validating and disseminating research, or should they take on broader responsibilities for facilitating its application? Is there a risk that emphasizing practical impact might distort the research process or undermine the pursuit of fundamental knowledge?
These are legitimate concerns, and we have grappled with them seriously as we have developed our vision. There is indeed a tension between the freedom to pursue knowledge for its own sake and the pressure to produce immediately useful results. Some of the most transformative scientific discoveries in history emerged from basic research conducted without any thought of practical application. The scientists who developed quantum mechanics in the early 20th century were not thinking about smartphones and computers; they were trying to understand the fundamental nature of reality. Yet their theoretical work eventually enabled technologies that have reshaped civilization.
We firmly believe that the pursuit of fundamental knowledge must be protected and supported. Not every research project needs to have an obvious practical application. Not every journal needs to prioritize real-world impact. The ecosystem of scientific research is healthiest when it includes space for pure curiosity-driven inquiry, for theoretical exploration, for work that may not bear fruit for decades or even centuries.
However, we also believe that there is enormous value in journals that explicitly focus on connecting research to application. The current system already includes journals that specialize in different aspects of the research process: some focus on rapid publication of preliminary findings, others on comprehensive reviews of literature, still others on replication studies or negative results. A journal that specializes in facilitating the translation of research into practice is simply another valuable niche within this diverse ecosystem.
Moreover, we do not see the emphasis on practical impact as necessarily compromising research quality. On the contrary, engagement with real-world problems often generates new research questions and reveals gaps in our understanding that purely theoretical work might miss. When a researcher tries to apply their findings in an actual organizational or social context, they often discover complications and nuances that lead to deeper, more sophisticated research. The interaction between theory and practice is not one-directional; it is a dialogue that enriches both.
Our model also does not mean that we only publish research with immediate applications. We are deeply interested in theoretical work and foundational research, but we look for research that, even if abstract, has the potential to inform practice eventually. We publish work based on promising theoretical foundations, innovative methodologies, or novel frameworks that might take years to be fully validated but that represent important steps forward in our understanding. What distinguishes us is not that we reject basic research, but that we actively work to ensure that research of all kinds reaches audiences beyond the academy.
A New Ecosystem for Knowledge Creation
What we are building is more than a publishing platform; it is an ecosystem for knowledge creation and application that recognizes the interconnected nature of research, practice, and impact. In this ecosystem, the boundaries between different types of intellectual work become more fluid and collaborative.
Consider how this might work in practice. A researcher studying organizational behavior publishes a paper with us on how team composition affects innovation. The paper is rigorous, well-designed, and makes a genuine contribution to the academic literature. But it does not stop there. We connect this researcher with several companies that are struggling with innovation challenges. The researcher has opportunities to observe how their findings play out in real organizational contexts, which generates new questions and insights. A corporation implements practices based on the research and documents the results, which feeds back into the academic literature. An investor who learns about this work funds a startup that builds tools to help organizations optimize team composition. A policy think tank uses the findings to inform recommendations about how to structure government agencies to be more innovative.
In this scenario, the original research paper is not the endpoint but the beginning of a chain of applications, adaptations, and further research. The researcher's career is enhanced not just by citations in other academic papers but by tangible evidence that their work has changed how organizations operate. The companies solve real problems and gain competitive advantages. The investor finds promising opportunities. The think tank improves public policy. And all of this generates new knowledge that flows back into the research community.
This is the kind of ecosystem we are working to create. It requires infrastructure that traditional journals do not provide: networks of practitioners, forums for interaction, mechanisms for tracking real-world applications, support for translating research into accessible formats, and a commitment to follow research beyond publication to see where it leads.
It also requires a different relationship with our authors. We do not simply accept their papers, send them through peer review, and publish them. We work with them as partners in a longer-term project of ensuring their research achieves meaningful impact. This might mean helping them identify potential applications they had not considered, connecting them with practitioners in relevant fields, supporting them in developing supplementary materials that make their work more accessible, or creating opportunities for them to present their findings to non-academic audiences.
The Responsibility We Accept
By taking on this broader mission, we accept significant responsibilities. We must maintain rigorous academic standards while also being accessible to non-specialists. We must protect researchers' intellectual freedom while also encouraging them to consider practical applications. We must build trust with practitioners and decision-makers while never compromising the integrity of the research we publish.
These responsibilities are not easy to balance, but we believe they are essential. The challenges facing humanity today are too urgent and too complex to be addressed by isolated communities of experts working in parallel without connection. Climate change will not be solved by climate scientists alone; it requires coordination between researchers, policymakers, business leaders, engineers, and citizens. Healthcare challenges require collaboration between medical researchers, hospital administrators, insurance companies, technology developers, and patients. Economic inequality demands that insights from economics, sociology, psychology, and political science reach those who design policies and run institutions.
We accept the responsibility to be a bridge between these different worlds. This means we must understand multiple languages: the language of academic research, the language of business and management, the language of policy and governance, the language of technology and innovation. We must be able to translate between these languages without losing essential meaning.
We also accept the responsibility to be honest about uncertainty and complexity. One of the risks of emphasizing practical application is the temptation to oversimplify research findings to make them more palatable to practitioners. We reject this approach. Real-world problems are complex, and solutions based on oversimplified research are likely to fail or even cause harm. We commit to presenting research in ways that are accessible but also honest about limitations, uncertainties, and the need for context-specific adaptation.
Furthermore, we recognize our responsibility to the broader research community. Our model works only if researchers trust us to represent their work fairly and to protect their intellectual contributions. We must ensure that when we help translate research for practical audiences, we do not distort its meaning or claim certainty where none exists. We must give proper credit to researchers when their work influences practice, and we must document and share the insights that emerge from real-world applications so that the research community can learn from them.
An Invitation to a Different Future
We do not claim that every journal should adopt our model. The diversity of the academic publishing ecosystem is one of its strengths. But we do believe that there is an urgent need for more journals and institutions that take seriously the challenge of connecting research to practice, that build infrastructure for knowledge transfer, and that measure success not only by academic citations but by real-world impact.
We invite researchers who are frustrated by the gap between their work and its potential applications to consider publishing with us. We promise to treat your research with the rigor it deserves while also working actively to ensure it reaches those who can use it. We invite practitioners, leaders, and decision-makers who are hungry for evidence-based insights to engage with our platform and our community. We promise to help you find the knowledge you need and to connect you with the researchers who can help you apply it effectively.
Most importantly, we invite everyone who cares about the role of knowledge in addressing the challenges of our time to join us in imagining and building a different future for scientific publishing. A future where the distance between discovery and application is measured in months rather than decades. Where researchers and practitioners work together as partners rather than in isolation. Where the value of research is measured not only by its contribution to academic discourse but by its impact on the lives of real people.
The challenges we face as a species are daunting. Climate change, pandemics, inequality, technological disruption, political polarization – these are not problems that will solve themselves. They require the best of our knowledge, the most rigorous of our research, and the most effective translation of that research into action. We believe that radical solutions to these major challenges are not generated in laboratories alone but are shaped through sincere collaboration and genuine alliances that place the interest of humanity at the core of their objectives.
This is why we exist. This is why we connect researchers with influential minds and entities capable of transforming ideas into practical applications. This is why we are committed to opening doors to sustainable innovations that deliver real value to present and future generations. We are not content to be passive archivists of human knowledge. We aspire to be active participants in the process by which that knowledge shapes our world.
The research you conduct matters. The insights you generate have the potential to change lives, to solve problems, to create opportunities, to build a better future. But potential alone is not enough. Knowledge must move, must connect, must be applied. That is our mission. That is our commitment. And that is our invitation to you: join us in building a world where knowledge does not end with publication but begins its real work of transforming reality.