Advantages and challenges to open science practices

TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 21 (no. 3),

The article examines open science practices in relation with the Open Science framework. The core values of open science, emerged as a response to the long-standing challenges to scientific knowledge production, include: transparency, scrutiny, critique and reproducibility; equality of opportunities; responsibility, respect and accountability; collaboration, participation and inclusion; flexibility; sustainability. These are the guiding principles for open science practices. The spread of open science practices is uneven, in terms of regional, disciplinary, gender, and institutional differences. The overview of international studies shows that open science practices are beginning to affect the whole research cycle, from idea emergence throughout the dissemination and exploitation of research results. We analyzed four most widespread practices – open data, open peer review, preregistration and registered reports, and open access. Our findings suggest that all these practices, while solving particular problems, simultaneously create new ones. To overcome new challenges, shift in the principles themselves, scheme of funding and workload sharing, evaluation and reward processes are necessary. The most challenging is the need to change research culture in accordance with Open Science values. In Russia, open access is a commonly spread practice, whereas the rest three practices yet to be discussed.
Citation: Dezhina I.G. (2023). Advantages and challenges to open science practices. Terra Economicus 21(3), 70–87 (in Russian). DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2023-21-3-70-87

Keywords: open science; open data; open access; open peer review; pre-registration; values

JEL codes: O33, O38

  • Дежина И.Г. (2021). «Выбор победителей» в современной научной политике России. Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления (3), 53–74. [Dezhina, I. (2021). Picking winners in modern Russian science policy. Public Administration Issues (3), 53–74 (in Russian)].
  • Abele-Brehm, A., Gollwitzer, M., Steinberg, U., Schonbrodt, F. (2019). Attitudes toward open science and public data sharing: A survey among members of the German psychological society. Social Psychology 50(4), 252–260. DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000384
  • Anglada, L., Abadal, E. (2023). Open access: a journey from impossible to probable, but still uncertain. Profesional de la Información 32(1), e320113. DOI: 10.3145/epi.2023.ene.13
  • Armeni, K., Brinkman, L., Carlsson, R., Eerland, A., Fijten, R. et al. (2021). Towards wide-scale adoption of open science practices: the role of open science communities. Science and Public Policy 48(5), 605–611. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scab039
  • Beer, J., Eastwick, P., Goh, J. (2023). Hits and misses in the last decade of open science: Researchers from different subfields and career stages offer personal reflections and suggestions. Social Psychological Bulletin. In press. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/504114b1e4b0b97fe5a520af/t/64221b375b8c2754bae23881/1679956792020/BeerEastwickGoh_InPress.pdf (accessed on June 5, 2023).
  • Berezko, O., Medina, L., Malaguarnera, G. et al. (2021). Perspectives on open science and scholarly publishing: A survey study focusing on early career researchers in Europe [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 10, 1306. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.74831.1
  • Besançon, L., Rönnberg, N., Löwgren, J., Tennant, J., Cooper, M. (2020). Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing. Research Integrity and Peer Review 5, Article 8. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z
  • Bornmann, L., Herich, H., Joos, H. et al. (2012). In public peer review of submitted manuscripts, how do reviewer comments differ from comments written by interested members of the scientific community? A content analysis of comments written for “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics”. Scientometrics 93, 915–929. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0731-8
  • Brainard, J. (2023). Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common. Science 380(6645), 568–569. DOI: 10.1126/science.adi6523
  • Budden, A., Tregenza, T., Aarsen, L. et al. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23(1), 4–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008
  • Burgelman, J.-C., Pascu, C., Szkuta, K., Von Schomberg, R., Karalopoulos, A. et al. (2019). Open science, open data, and open scholarship: European policies to make science fit for the twenty-first century. Frontiers in Big Data 2(43). DOI: 10.3389/fdata.2019.00043
  • Cole, N., Reicjmann, S., Ross-Hellauer, T. (2023). Toward equitable open research: stakeholder co-created recommendations for research institutions, funders and researchers. Royal Society Open Science 10, 221460. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.221460
  • Decoursey, T. (2006). Perspective: The pros and cons of open peer review. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/nature04991
  • De Rosa, R., Aragona, B. (2021). Open science and the academic profession. JeDEM – EJournal of EDemocracy and Open Government 13(2), 184–205. DOI: 10.29379/jedem.v13i2.661
  • Dominik, M., Nzweundji, J., Ahmed, N., Carnicelli, S., Mat Jalaluddin, N., et al. (2022). Open science – For whom? Data Science Journal 21(1), 1–8. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2022-001
  • Emery, C., Lucraft, M., Monaghan, J., Stuart, D., Winter, S. (2021). Going for gold: Exploring the reach and impact of Gold open access articles in hybrid journals [white paper]. Figshare. Journal contribution. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.16860229.v2
  • Fang, F., Steen, R., Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(42), 17028–33. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109
  • Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 44(4), 311–326. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
  • Gabelica, M., Bojčić, R., Puljak, L. (2022). Many researchers were not compliant with their published data sharing statement: a mixed-methods study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 150, 33–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.019
  • Gownaris, N., Vermeir, K., Bittner, M.-I., Gunawardena, L., Kaur-Ghumaan, S. et al. (2022). Barriers to full participation in the open science life cycle among early career researchers. Data Science Journal 21(2), 1–15. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2022-002
  • Grant, S., Wendt, K., Leadbeater, B., Supplee, H., Mayo-Wilson, E. et al. (2022). Transparent, open, and reproducible prevention science. Prevention Science 23, 701–722. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-022-01336-w
  • Gogotsi, Y. (2023). Pay to publish? Open access publishing from the viewpoint of a scientist and editor. Graphene and 2D Materials 8, 1–3. DOI: 10.1007/s41127-023-00057-3
  • Gonzales, J., Cunningham, C. (2015). The promise of pre-registration in psychological research. Psychological Science Agenda. https://osf.io/7pd5u/download (accessed on June 5, 2023).
  • He, Y., Tian, K., Xu, X. (2023). A validation study on the factors affecting the practice modes of open peer review. Scientometrics 128, 587–607. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04552-x
  • Hrynaszkiewicz, I., Harney, J., Cadwallader, L. (2021). A survey of researchers’ needs and priorities for data sharing. Data Science Journal 20(1), 31. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2021-031
  • Ioannidis, J. (2018). Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLoS Biol 16(3), e2005468. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468
  • Jarolimkova, A., Drobikova, B. (2019). Data sharing in social sciences: Case study on Charles University. In: Kurbanoğlu, S. et al. (eds.) Information Literacy in Everyday Life. New York: Springer International Publishing, pp. 556–565.
  • Jones, N. (2022). Authors’ names have ‘astonishing’ influence on peer reviewers. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-03256-9
  • Know, D. (2022). Open-access publishing fees deter researchers in the global south. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-00342-w
  • Kosmopoulos, C. (2022). From open access publishing to open science: An overview of the last developments in Europe and in France. In: Alemneh, D. (ed.) Handbook of Research on the Global View of Open Access and Scholarly Communications. IGI Global, pp. 1–22. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-9805-4.ch001
  • Kravitz, R., Franks, P., Feldman, M. et al. (2010). Editorial peer reviewers’ recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS One 5(4), e10072. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072
  • LaPlante, D., Louderback, E., Abarbanel, B. (2021). Gambling researchers’ use and views of open science principles and practices: A brief report. International Gambling Studies 21(3), 381–394. DOI: 10.1080/14459795.2021.1891272
  • Ledgerwood, A., Hudson, S., Lewis, N., Jr., Maddox, K., Pickett, C. et al. (2022). The pandemic as a portal: Reimagining psychological science as truly open and inclusive. Perspectives on Psychological Science 17(4), 937–959.
  • Leonelli, S. (2021). Open science and epistemic diversity: Friends or foes? Philosophy of Science 89(5), 1–21. DOI: 10.1017/psa.2022.45
  • Lund, A., Zukerfeld, M. (2020). Corporate Capitalism’s Use of Openness: Profit for Free? Springer Nature.
  • Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Trofimovich, P., Ellis, N. (2018). Introducing registered reports at language learning: Promoting transparency, replication, and a synthetic ethic in the language sciences. Language Learning 68, 309–320.
  • McKiernan, E., Bourne, P., Brown, C., Buck, S., Kenall, A. et al. (2016). Point of view: How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife 5, e16800. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.16800.001
  • Mlinarić, A., Horvat, M., Šupak Smolčić, V. (2017). Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results. Biochemia medica 27(3), 447–452. DOI: 10.11613/BM.2017.030201
  • Näre, L. (2022). Is open science good for research and researchers? Nordic Journal of Migration Research 12(1), 1–3. DOI: 10.33134/njmr.553
  • Nature (2022). Nature is trialling transparent peer review – The early results are encouraging. Nature 603, 8. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-00493-w
  • Nature (2023). Nature welcomes Registered Reports. Nature 614, 594. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-00506-2
  • Nelhans, G., Nolin, J. (2022). Anti-transparency within the EU shift to open science. Science and Public Policy scac039. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scac039
  • Nosek, B. et al. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science 348(6242), 1422–1425. DOI: 10.1126/ science.aab2374
  • Nosek, B., Ebersole, C., DeHaven, A., Mellor, D. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(11), 2600–2606. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708274114
  • Olejniczak, A., Wilson, M. (2020). Who’s writing open access (OA) articles? Characteristics of OA authors at Ph.D. – granting institutions in the United States. Quantitative Science Studies 1(4), 1429–1450. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00091
  • Pham, M., Oh, T. (2021). Preregistration is neither sufficient nor necessary for good science. Journal of Consumer Psychology 31, 163–176.
  • Park, M., Leahey, E., Funk, R. (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature 613, 138–144. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x
  • Pasquetto, I., Sands, A., Borgman, C. (2015). Exploring openness in data and science: What is “open,” to whom, when, and why? In Proceedings of the 78th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Information Science with Impact: Research in and for the Community. Article № 141. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2857070.2857211 (accessed on June 5, 2023).
  • Peters, D., Ceci, S. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5(2), 187–195. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X00011183
  • Redkina, N. (2022). The information ecosystem of open science: Key aspects of development. Science and Technical Information Processing 49(3), 151–158. DOI: 10.3103/S0147688222030042
  • Reichmann, S., Wieser, B. (2022). Open science at the science–policy interface: Bringing in the evidence? Health Research Policy and Systems 20(70). DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00867-6
  • Rosman, T., Bosnjak, M., Silber, H., Koßmann, J. (2022). Open science and public trust in science: Results from two studies. Public Understanding of Science 31(8), 1046–1062. DOI 10.1177/09636625221100686
  • Ross, J., Gross, C., Desai, M. et al. (2006). Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 295(14), 1675–1680. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.14.1675
  • Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] F1000Research 6, 588. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
  • Sanderson, K. (2023). Editors quit top neuroscience journal to protest against open-access charges. Nature 616(7958), 641–641. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-01391-5
  • Schares, E. (2023). Impact of the 2022 OSTP memo: A bibliometric analysis of U.S. federally funded publications, 2017–2021. Quantitative Science Studies. Advance Publication. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00237
  • Simard, M.-A., Ghiasi, G., Mongeon, P., Larivière, V. (2022). National differences in dissemination and use of open access literature. PLoS ONE 17(8), e0272730. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272730
  • Simmons, J., Leif, N., Simonsohn, U. (2021). Pre-registration: Why and how. Journal of Consumer Psychology 31(1), 151–162.
  • Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99(4), 178–182. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
  • Spinello, A., Giglitto, D., Lockley, E. (2021). Management of open access research infrastructures in large EU projects: The “CultureLabs” case (CNR-IRCrES Working Paper 9/2021). Istituto di Ricerca sulla Crescita Economica Sostenibile. DOI: 10.23760/2421-7158.2021.009
  • Steinhardt, I., Bauer, M., Wünsche, H. et al. (2022). The connection of open science practices and the methodological approach of researchers. Quality & Quantity. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-022-01524-4
  • Teixeira da Silva, J., Nazarovets, S. (2022). The role of Publons in the context of open peer review. Publishing Research Quarterly 38, 760–781. DOI: 10.1007/s12109-022-09914-0
  • Tennant, J., Jacques, D., Collister, L. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.8460.1
  • Tenopir, C., Christian, L., Allard, S., Borycz, J. (2018). Research data sharing: Practices and attitudes of geophysicists. Earth and Space Science 5, 891–902. DOI: 10.1029/2018EA000461
  • Turrini, T., Dörler, D., Richter, A., Heigl, F., Bonn, A. (2018). The threefold potential of environmental citizen science-Generating knowledge, creating learning opportunities and enabling civic participation. Biological Conservation 225, 176–186. DOI: 10.1016/j. biocon.2018.03.024
  • Van Noorden, R. (2022). An open-access history: The world according to Smits. Nature 603, 384–385. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-00717-z
  • van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S. et al. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ 318(7175), 23–27. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
  • van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., Evans, S. (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 341, c5729. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c5729
  • Verma, A., Sonkar, S. (2021). Growth of open access scholarly communication in BRICS countries. Library Philosophy and Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/6453 (accessed on June 5, 2023).
  • Vicente-Saez, R., Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research 88, 428–436. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043
  • Wachholz, P. (2022). Transparency, openness, and reproducibility: GGA advances in alignment with good editorial practices and open science. Geriatrics, Gerontology and Aging 16, e0220027.
  • Walker, R., Rocha da Silva, P. (2015). Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience 9, 169. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169
  • Wallach, J., Boyack, K., Loannidis, J. (2018). Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015–2017. PLoS Biology 16(11), e2006930. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006930
  • Wang, Y., Wang, H., Tang, C. (2012). Discussion and suggestion on review mechanism of nonconsensus projects. Bulletin of National Natural Science Foundation of China 2, 74–78. DOI: 10.16262/j.cnki.1000-8217.2012.02.002
  • Zarghani, M., Nemati-Anaraki, L., Sedghi, S. et al. (2023). Iranian researchers’ perspective about concept and effect of open science on research publication. BMC Health Service Research 23, 437. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09420-9
  • Zhang, L., Ma, L. (2023). Is open science a double-edged sword?: Data sharing and the changing citation pattern of Chinese economics articles. Scientometrics 128, 2803–2818. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04684-8
  • Zhang, L., Wei, Y., Huang, Y., Sivertsen, G. (2022). Should open access lead to closed research? The trends towards paying to perform research. Scientometrics 127, 7653–7679. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04407-5
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606