SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

TERRA ECONOMICUS

The pitfalls of “Open Science”


TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 22 (no. 4),

The article explores the challenges that have emerged as open science practices have become more widespread. I suggest a classification of factors that may hinder the transition to a more widespread adoption of these practices. Open science refers to a set of principles and methods that aim to make scientific research in all fields accessible to everyone, benefiting both scientists and society as a whole. In recent years, funding agencies have been increasingly calling for a shift towards open access and other principles of open science. However, experience has shown that there are not only expected limitations but also unintended effects that can even conflict with the values of open science, such as equity and inclusiveness. Based on a review of secondary sources, the article proposes a typology of limiting factors that can be divided into five extended groups. These include resource factors, regulatory factors, institutional factors, cultural and educational factors, and motivational factors. A more detailed analysis of the emerging barriers to open access and open data has shown that each practice has its own set of challenges. However, resource and regulatory factors are the most significant in both cases. For open access, institutional factors have a more pronounced influence. On the other hand, motivational factors are a more significant obstacle for open data. The main pitfalls seem to be the growing stratification, the potential risks associated with the disclosure of personal data, and the continually increasing costs for publications in open access. The involvement of Russia in open science is currently limited by sanctions. This does not diminish the importance of promoting open access through models that do not require the transfer of funds overseas. At the same time, it is important to expand the publishing in English. It would be beneficial to use the capabilities of the BRICS countries in developing open data infrastructure.
Citation: Dezhina I.G. (2024). The pitfalls of “Open Science”. Terra Economicus 22(4), 137–150 (in Russian). DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2024-22-4-137-150
Acknowledgment: open science; open science practices; open data; open access; obstacles; dissemination challenges; political constraints


Keywords:

JEL codes: O33, O38

References:
  • Газоян А.Г. (2020). Гражданская наука как инструмент научной коммуникации: анализ российской прак¬тики. Nomothetika: Философия. Социология. Право 45(4), 810–817. [Gazoyan, A. (2020). Citizen science as an instrument of science communication: Analysis of Russian practice. Nomothetika: Philosophy. Soci¬ology. Law series 45(4), 810–817 (in Russian)]. DOI: 10.18413/2712-746X-2020-45-4-810-817
  • Дежина И.Г. (2022). Наука под санкциями: опыт иранских университетов. Университетское управление: прак¬тика и анализ 26(3), 22–34. [Dezhina, I. (2022). Science under sanctions: Experience of the Iranian universities. University Management: Practice and Analysis 26(3), 22–34 (in Russian)]. DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2022.03.019
  • Дежина И.Г. (2023). Преимущества и проблемы практик «открытой науки». Terra Economicus 21(3), 70–87. [Dezhina, I. (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
  • Полтерович В.М. (2023). Авторский капитал и реформирование российской публикационной системы. Во¬просы экономики (6), 138–158. [Polterovich, V. (2023). Authorship capital and reforming the Russian pub¬lication system. Voprosy Ekonomiki (6), 138–158 (in Russian)]. DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2023-6-138-158
  • Ahmed, M., Othman, R., Noordin, M. (2023). Factors influencing open science participation through research data sharing and reuse among researchers: A systematic literature review. Research Square Preprint, 23 October, version 1. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3461722/v1
  • Allen, C., Mehler, D. (2019). Open science challenges, benefit and tips in early career and beyond. PLOS Biology 17, e3000246. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246
  • Altman, M., Cohen, P. (2022). The scholarly knowledge ecosystem: challenges and opportunities for the field of information. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 6, 751553. DOI: 10.3389/frma.2021.751553
  • Basson, I., Simard, M.-A., Ouangreґ, Z., Sugimoto, C., Larivière, V. (2022). The effect of data sources on the mea¬surement of open access: A comparison of Dimensions and the Web of Science. PLoS ONE 17, e0265545. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265545
  • Blanco, A. (2024). The role of Open Science in our research. BioResources 19(2), 2013–2016. DOI: 10.15376/ biores.19.2.2013-2016
  • Bohannon, J. (2016). The frustrated science student behind Sci-Hub. Science, 352(6285), 511–511. DOI: 10.1126/science.352.6285.511
  • Butler, L.-A., Hare, M., Schönfelder, N. et al. (2024). An open dataset of article processing charges from six large scholarly publishers (2019–2023). arXiv. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08356
  • Couldry, N., Mejias, U. (2019). Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & New Media 20(4), 336–349. DOI: 10.1177/1527476418796632
  • de la Cueva, J., Méndez, E. (2022). Open science and intellectual property rights: How can they better interact? State of the art and reflection: executive summary. Publications Office of the European Union. https:// data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/347305
  • Devare, M., Arnaud, E., Antezana, E., King, B. (2023). Governing agricultural data: Challenges and recommen¬dations. In: Willamson, H., Leonelli, S. (eds.) Towards Responsible Plant Data Linkage: Data Challenges for Agricultural Research and Development. Springer, pp. 201–222. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-13276-6_11
  • Ferguson, J., Littman, R., Christensen, G. et al. (2023). Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences. Nature Communications 14, 5401. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-41111-1
  • Haffar, S., Bazerbachi, F., Murad, M. (2019). Peer review bias: A critical review. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 94(4), 670–676. DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004
  • Hessels, L., Koens, L., Diederen, P. (2021). Perspectives on the future of open science: Effects of global variation in open science practices on the European research system. Publications Office of the European Union. DOI: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/054281
  • Himmelstein, D., Romero, A., Levernier, J. et al. (2018). Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly litera¬ture. eLife, 7, e32822. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.32822.001
  • Hocquet, A. (2020). Open science in times of coronavirus: introducing the concept of “real-time” publication. Substantia 4(1), 937. DOI: 10.13128/Substantia-937
  • Huang, C.-K., Neylon, C., Montgomery, L. et al. (2024). Open access research outputs receive more diverse cita¬tions. Scientometrics 129, 825–845. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04894-0
  • Huber, J., Inoua, S., Kerschbamer, R. et al. (2022). Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 119(41), e2205779119. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2205779119
  • Khayyat, M., Bannister, F. (2015). Open data licensing: More than meets the eye. Information Polity 20(4), 231–252. DOI: 10.3233/IP-150357
  • Kojakua, S., Livan, G., Masudad, N. (2021). Detecting anomalous citation groups in journal networks. Scientific Reports 11(1), 14524. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93572-3
  • Lattu, A., Cai, Y. (2023). Institutional logics in the open science practices of university–industry research col-laboration. Science and Public Policy 50(5), 905–916. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scad037
  • Lilja, E. (2020). Threat of policy alienation: Exploring the implementation of open science policy in research practice. Science and Public Policy 47(6), 803–817. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scaa044
  • Maddi, A., Sapinho, D. (2023). On the culture of open access: The Sci-hub paradox. Scientometrics 128, 5647– 5658. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04792-5
  • Manco, A. (2023). Open science policies as regarded by the communities of researchers from the basic sciences in the scientific periphery. Online Information Review. DOI: 10.1108/OIR-03-2023-0135
  • Martin, B. (2015). R&D policy instruments: A critical review of what we do & don’t know. Working Papers № wp476. University of Cambridge, Centre for Business Research. https://ideas.repec.org/p/cbr/cbrwps/wp476.html
  • McCarley, J., Rose, L., Fischer, S. et al. (2023). Open Science practices in the journal “Human Factors”: 2017– 2022. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 67(1), 1831–1836. DOI: 10.1177/21695067231192276
  • McKenzie, N., Liu, R., Chiu, A. et al. (2022). Exploring bias in scientific peer review: An ASCO initiative. JCO Oncology Practice 18(12), 791–799. DOI: 10.1200/OP.22.00275
  • Méndez, E., Sánchez-Núñez, P. (2023). Navigating the future and overcoming challenges to unlock open science. In: González-Esteban, E., Feenstra, R., Camarinha-Matos, L. (eds.) Ethics and Responsible Research and Innovation in Practice. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, pp. 203–223. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-33177-0_13
  • Naaman, K., Grant, S., Kianersi, S. et al. (2023). Exploring enablers and barriers to implementing the transpar¬ency and openness promotion guidelines: A theory-based survey of journal editors. Royal Society Open Science 10, 221093. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.221093
  • Obels, P., Lakens, D., Coles, N., Gottfried, J., Green, S. (2020). Analysis of open data and computational reproduc¬ibility in registered reports in psychology. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 3(2), 229–237. DOI: 10.1177/2515245920918872
  • Pownall, M., Talbot, C., Kilby, L., Branney, P. (2023). Opportunities, challenges and tensions: Open sci¬ence through a lens of qualitative social psychology. British Journal of Social Psychology 62(1), 1–9. DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12628
  • Prosser, A., Hamshaw, R., Meyer, J. et al. (2022). When open data closes the door: A critical examination of the past, present and the potential future for open data guidelines in journals. British Journal of Social Psychology 62(3), 1–19. DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12576
  • Renaut, S., Budden, A., Gravel, D., Poisot, T., Peres-Neto, P. (2018). Management, archiving, and sharing for biologists and the role of research institutions in the technology-oriented age. Bioscience 68, 400–411. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy038
  • Roa, H., Loza-Aguirre, E., Flores, P. (2019). A survey on the problems affecting the development of open govern¬ment data initiatives. 2019 Sixth International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG), Quito, Ecuador, 157–163. DOI: 10.1109/ICEDEG.2019.8734452
  • Sanderson, K. (2024). Journal editors are resigning en masse: what do these group exits achieve? Nature 628, 244–245. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-024-00887-y
  • Scheffler, M., Aeschlimann, M., Albrecht, M. et al. (2022). FAIR data enabling new horizons for materials re¬search. Nature 604(7907), 635–642. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04501-x
  • Shmagun, H., Shim, J., Kim, J., Choi, K.-N., Oppenheim, C. (2023). Identifying key factors and actions: Initial steps in the Open Science policy design and implementation process. Journal of Information Science (in press). DOI: 10.1177/01655515231205496
  • Tay, A. (2024). The open-science movement for sharing laboratory materials gains momentum. Nature 625, 841–843. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-024-00172-y
  • Thibault, R., Amaral, O., Argolo, F. et al. (2023). Open Science 2.0: Towards a truly collaborative research eco¬system. PLoS Biology 21(10), e3002362. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002362
  • Ugochukwu, A., Phillips, P. (2024). Open data ownership and sharing: Challenges and opportunities for appli¬cation of FAIR principles and a checklist for data managers. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 16, 101157. DOI: 10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101157
  • Viseur, R. (2015). Open Science – Practical issues in open research data. Proceedings of 4th Interna¬tional Conference on Data Management Technologies and Applications – DATA, SciTePress, 201–206. DOI: 10.5220/0005558802010206
  • Willinsky, J. (2023). Copyright’s Broken Promise: How to Restore the Law’s Ability to Promote the Progress of Science. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M. (2015). Towards decision support for disclosing data: Closed or open data? Informa¬tion Polity 20(2-3), 103–117. DOI: 10.3233/IP-150358
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606