A Review of Open Science Literature – Mapping the Academic Landscape for Transformational Change

• September 19, 2025

The advancement of open science represents one of the most significant transformations in contemporary research culture, yet the path towards meaningful implementation remains fraught with complex challenges. The Open Universal Science (OPUS) project recognised that understanding the existing academic discourse was fundamental to developing effective interventions and metrics for open science adoption. Through its Work Package 1, the project undertook a systematic review of open science literature, building upon initial landscaping efforts to capture the evolving academic conversation around this critical domain.

Literature Review identifed emerging trends, persistent challenges, and new evidence across five critical dimensions of open science implementation

The OPUS literature review, documented in Deliverable 1.4, served as a foundation for the project’s broader mission to reform research assessment systems and incentivise open science practices. This academic analysis was designed not merely as an intellectual exercise, but as a strategic tool to inform the development of practical interventions and measurable indicators for open science implementation.

The primary purpose of this literature review was to update and expand upon the initial landscaping conducted at the project’s outset, systematically examining academic publications released since 2023 to identify emerging trends, persistent challenges, and new evidence across five critical dimensions of open science implementation. The review was structured to provide direct input to the project’s subsequent work packages, particularly the identification of interventions for open science rewards and incentives (WP2) and the development of metrics and indicators (WP3).

A rigorous methodological approach maintained consistency with the project’s earlier landscaping efforts whilst adapting to the reduced volume of recent literature. The team employed the SCOPUS database as the primary search tool, complemented by Google Scholar searches and analysis of grey literature to ensure appropriate coverage. This systematic approach enabled the project to trace the evolution of academic thinking across five interconnected domains: research assessment and incentives, career precarity, gender equality, industry practices, and trust in science.

The review’s significance extended beyond mere documentation. By maintaining a consistent methodological framework throughout the project’s duration, the team was able to identify not only what new knowledge had emerged, but also where critical gaps persisted in the academic understanding of open science implementation. This gap analysis proved instrumental in shaping the project’s practical outputs and highlighting areas requiring further research attention.

1. Incentives and Rewards for Open Science and Research Assessment

The examination of incentives and rewards for open science, intrinsically linked to the broader question of research assessment reform, represented the most robust area of academic discourse identified in the literature review. This focus reflected the central importance of assessment systems in driving researcher behaviour and the growing recognition that traditional metrics-based approaches were insufficient for capturing the full value of open science practices.

The research team conducted a systematic search of academic literature published since 2023, employing carefully constructed search terms that combined concepts of research careers, incentives, rewards, and assessment with open science terminology. The search strategy utilised multiple combinations of terms to ensure in-depth coverage, including variations such as “research* career*”, “incentiv*”, “reward*”, and “research* assess*” paired with “Open Science” and “Open Research”.

This methodological approach yielded ten new articles, of which seven provided directly relevant contributions to the research question examining whether literature published since the first OPUS landscaping provided further input regarding existing incentives and rewards for encouraging open science adoption. The team supplemented the SCOPUS database search with Google Scholar investigations and reference list analysis to ensure no significant publications were overlooked.

Key Findings

The updated literature review confirmed and expanded upon the project’s initial findings regarding the urgent need for research assessment reform. The academic discourse consistently demonstrated that current assessment systems remain overly focused on traditional bibliometric indicators, particularly peer-reviewed publications and citations in high-impact journals. This persistent emphasis on quantitative measures continued to undervalue the transparency, reproducibility, and collaborative elements central to open science practices.

Particularly significant was a global study involving 230 researchers that revealed striking insights into the research community’s preferences for open science recognition. The study found that researchers favoured the inclusion of open science indicators in research evaluation and career progression processes above all other potential incentives. This was followed by tangible funding incentives specifically earmarked for open science activities. Remarkably, the study indicated that researchers preferred qualitative assessments supplemented by quantitative measures, rather than purely metric-driven approaches.

The literature also revealed concerning conceptual challenges, with one 2024 article warning against uncritical incentivisation of open research within existing frameworks of academic capitalism. This analysis suggested that without significant systemic reform, open science initiatives might be appropriated as tools of institutional control, potentially increasing bureaucratic burden and workload for researchers without delivering meaningful change.

International perspectives enriched the analysis, with studies from Ukraine, Korea, and South Africa all confirming the global nature of assessment system inadequacies. Korean research identified traditional evaluation systems and insufficient funder incentives as the most serious barriers to open science implementation, whilst South African analysis called for fundamental realignment of values, policies, and assessment processes to support open access and open science advancement.

Literature Related to Rewards, Incentives, and Research Assessment

The following publications formed the evidence base for this analysis:

• Mfengu, A. (2025) – “Socially Just Research Impact Assessment as a Foundation for the Advancement of Open Access and Open Science: A Case of a Research-Intensive African University” – This South African case study explored how higher education institutions could advance open science through equitable performance evaluation, emphasising the need to realign institutional values and assessment processes.
• Feenstra, R.A., Carretero García, C. & Gómez Nicolau, E. (2025) – “Perception of Research Misconduct in a Spanish University” – While not explicitly focused on open science, this empirical study provided insights into how evaluation system pressures contribute to research misconduct, highlighting the role of bibliometric indicators and publication pressure.
• Liu, Z., Wang, X. T., Wang, Z., Yan, W., & Hu, M. (2025) – “Registered reports in psychology across scholarly citations and public dissemination: A comparative metaevaluation of more than a decade of practice” – This analysis examined how registered reports, a key open science practice, affected academic recognition and public attention, revealing concerning citation disadvantages that could deter researcher participation.
• Grattarola F. et al. (2024) – “Gaps between Open Science activities and actual recognition systems: Insights from an international survey” – This global survey of 230 researchers provided empirical evidence about researcher preferences for open science recognition, revealing strong support for policy-based incentives over purely financial rewards.
• Thomas J. Hostler (2024) – “Open Research Reforms and the Capitalist University: Areas of Opposition and Alignment” – Using academic capitalism theory, this article provided a critical analysis of potential socio-political consequences of open research reforms, warning against implementation within existing neoliberal frameworks.
• Izarova, I., Bediukh, O., Hartman, Y., & Baklazhenko, Y. (2024) – “From Quantity to Quality: Evaluating Scientific Work of Tertiary School Teachers and Researchers: (Case Study of European Countries and Ukraine)” – This comparative analysis examined modern approaches to researcher evaluation, advocating for qualitative indicators as alternatives to traditional quantitative metrics.
• Kullmann, S., Weimer, V. (2024) – “Teaching as part of open scholarship: developing a scientometric framework for Open Educational Resources” – This innovative work proposed frameworks for recognising teaching contributions through openly available educational materials, addressing the frequent undervaluation of teaching in academic assessment.
• Malgorzata Lagisz et al. (2024) – “‘Best Paper’ awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science” – This analysis critically examined academic award systems, demonstrating how current recognition mechanisms fail to encourage transparency and equitable access to academic recognition.
• Mabile, L. et al. (2024) – “Recommendations on Open Science Rewards and Incentives: Guidance for multiple stakeholders in Research” – Developed by the RDA-SHARC interest group, this publication provided recommendations for implementing open science reward schemes at multiple organisational levels.
• Shmagun H. et al. (2024) – “Survey-Based Evaluation of Open Science Factors in Korea’s R&D Ecosystem” – This Korean case study identified traditional research evaluation systems and inadequate funder policies as primary barriers to open science implementation.
• Shmagun, H. et al. (2023) – “Identifying key factors and actions: Initial steps in the Open Science Policy Design and Implementation Process” – This foundational work outlined systematic approaches to open science policy development and implementation processes.

2. Precarity of Research Careers and Open Science: The Missing Connection

The exploration of relationships between research career precarity and open science adoption represented one of the most challenging aspects of the literature review, revealing significant gaps in academic understanding of these interconnected issues. Despite the theoretical importance of this relationship, the review uncovered remarkably limited empirical evidence addressing whether open science practices influence career security or whether precarious employment conditions affect open science adoption.

The research team employed the same systematic methodology used in the original OPUS landscaping to ensure full coherence and comparability of results. Search combinations included variations of “precarity”, “precarious”, and “precariousness” paired with research-related terms and combined with open science terminology. The team also consulted with the SECURE project (Sustainable Careers for Researcher Empowerment), a sister initiative focused specifically on research careers and researcher empowerment.

The search strategy proved particularly challenging, yielding only three articles with the 2023 publication cutoff date. Upon detailed analysis, none of these publications demonstrated direct or indirect focus on the relationship between precarity and open science, highlighting the persistent gap in academic attention to this intersection.

Key Findings

The updated literature review unfortunately confirmed the initial OPUS finding that academic discourse lacks substantive evidence addressing the bidirectional relationship between career precarity and open science adoption. This absence of evidence proved particularly significant given the theoretical importance of the relationship and its potential implications for open science policy development.

The SECURE project’s literature review, whilst providing valuable context on researcher precarity more broadly, did not specifically address open science dimensions due to different project focuses. However, their work confirmed the persistent nature of academic career insecurity across EU countries, documenting how many PhD candidates lack proper employment contracts and social protection, and how early-career researchers frequently move between fixed-term positions without clear prospects for permanent employment.

The limited available literature suggested several factors contributing to research career precarity, including high intrinsic motivation among researchers, extended training periods, insufficient research funding, poor economic conditions, problematic career structures within higher education systems, competitive environments, and mismatches between researcher supply and institutional demand. Notably, open science practices were not explicitly mentioned among these contributing factors.

One significant finding emerged from the examination of responsibility dynamics in open science implementation. A 2025 study explored how researchers frame ethical considerations when implementing open science policies, identifying internal, social/societal, and collective responsibility orientations. However, this work did not extend to questions of career security or precarity.

The literature review identified a potential indirect connection through the broader discussion of academic culture and assessment systems. Current academic priorities that favour traditional research outputs over open science principles of transparency and reproducibility could theoretically disadvantage researchers who invest time in open science practices when competing for secure positions or tenure track appointments. However, no studies provided empirical evidence to support or refute this hypothesis.

Literature Related to Precarity of Research Careers and Open Science

The following publications informed this analysis:

• Erika Lilja (2025) – “Responsibility dynamics in open science: exploring researchers’ framing of ethical considerations in policy implementation” – This study examined how researchers conceptualise responsibility when implementing open science policies, identifying different ethical orientations but not addressing career security implications.
• Janger, Jürgen, et al. (2025) – “SECURE, Deliverable 5.3: Policy Brief Promoting SECURE Research Career Framework” – This policy brief from the SECURE project documented persistent challenges with precarious research careers across EU countries, confirming widespread employment insecurity issues.
• O’Keefe T., Courtois A. (2024) – “Holding Ourselves to Account: The Precarity Dividend and the Ethics of Researching Academic Precarity” – This methodological reflection examined ethical considerations in researching academic precarity without specifically addressing open science dimensions.
• Siler K. (2024) – “Gerontocracy, Labor Market Bottlenecks, and Generational Crises in Modern Science” – This analysis of generational dynamics in academic careers provided context for understanding career progression challenges but did not connect these issues to open science practices.
• Lebhardt, Fleur, et al. (2023) – “SECURE Deliverable 1.1: State-of-the-Art on Research Career Frameworks” – This review of research career frameworks provided foundational understanding of career progression models without specific open science focus.
• Day, Emma, et al. (2023) – “SECURE Deliverable 1.2: State-of-the-Art on Tenure Track-Like Models” – This analysis of tenure track models across different contexts informed understanding of career security mechanisms.
• Veronika P., Katalin T. (2023) – “‘Why Can’t Researchers Sign a Contract of Indefinite Duration?’ Career Insecurity of Female Researchers in STEM Fields” – This study examined gendered dimensions of career precarity in STEM fields, adding intersectional analysis to precarity discussions.
• Jürgen Janger, et al. (2022) – “Precarious Careers in Research. Analysis and Policy Options” –  WIFO Studies report mapped employment contracts and career models to understand which researcher groups face the greatest career insecurity.

3. Gender Equality and Open Science: Complex Intersections and Persistent Questions

The examination of relationships between gender equality and open science revealed nuanced and context-dependent connections that resist simple categorisation. This area of inquiry demanded careful attention to intersectional factors, cultural variations, and the complex ways in which open science initiatives might either advance or inadvertently perpetuate existing inequalities within research systems.

The literature review employed a search strategy that encompassed multiple dimensions of gender and equality terminology. Search combinations included variations of “gender”, “sex”, “gender equality”, “gendered”, “engendered”, “women/men”, “male/female”, and “masculine/feminine” paired with research, academic, and scientific terms. This approach aimed to capture the full spectrum of gender-related discourse within open science literature.

The search yielded eleven articles, though detailed analysis revealed that only one demonstrated direct relevance to open science questions. The team supplemented this limited SCOPUS result through Google Scholar investigations and drew upon extensive work conducted during the OPUS project, particularly the inclusion of gender as a horizontal intervention across all pilot sites in Work Package 4.

Key Findings

The updated literature review confirmed the original OPUS finding that whilst open science and gender equality are clearly interrelated, the nature of this relationship remains complex, contextual, and often non-causal. The evidence base continued to resist simple conclusions about whether open science practices predictably advance gender equality or whether gender equality initiatives necessarily promote open science adoption.

A significant 2024 Colombian study involving 2,331 researchers (61% men, 39% women) provided valuable empirical insights into researcher perceptions of open science and gender equity relationships. The majority of respondents recognised that openness in scientific processes would significantly contribute to equity, and the study found no significant gender differences in evaluating open science importance or utilisation across research stages. However, women respondents cited lack of training as the greatest obstacle to adopting open science practices, suggesting that capacity-building approaches must consider gendered barriers to participation.

The literature confirmed the continuing relevance of sociocultural context in shaping gender-open science relationships. As noted in the Colombian study, “sociocultural context and economic and personal circumstances cloud the picture”, making it difficult to isolate the relationship between gender and open science from other contributing or obstructing factors. This finding aligned with OPUS pilot organisation experiences, which revealed that discussions of gender and open science inevitably encompassed broader issues including work-life balance, training and capacity building, awareness of unconscious bias, and development of intersectional policies.

Feminist research perspectives provided critical insights into potential tensions within open science movements. A 2023 analysis examining knowledge equity and open science from feminist viewpoints raised important concerns about whether feminist and qualitative research methods might be undermined by open science movements that prioritise quantitative methods and data reproducibility. The authors highlighted particular barriers facing feminist early-career researchers, including academic precarity and male-dominated community structures.

Despite these concerns, the feminist analysis identified a growing number of early-career feminist researchers who actively claim participation in the open science movement, viewing it as providing “openness, ideology, and impact for changes in academia and science”. This suggests that whilst tensions exist, there are also opportunities for feminist researchers to shape open science development in more inclusive directions.

The OPUS project’s practical work with pilot organisations reinforced the literature’s emphasis on intersectionality and context-sensitivity. Pilot partners highlighted the need for more granular, disaggregated data collection on gender and open science practices, extending beyond binary gender categories to include dimensions such as researcher position, race, and geographic location. Such data would enable more precise identification of intersectional inequalities and support the development of targeted interventions to address bias in research assessment and monitoring.

Literature Related to Gender Equality and Open Science

The following publications informed this analysis:

• Vallejo Sierra RH (2024) – “Open Science and Gender Equity: What Colombian Researchers Say” – This empirical study surveyed 2,331 Colombian researchers to examine perceptions of relationships between open science and gender equity, providing valuable quantitative insights into researcher attitudes and identifying training as a key barrier for women.
• Ferguson, J., Littman, R., Christensen, G. et al. (2023) – “Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences” – This survey explicitly excluded gender from analysis, with authors stating they lacked evidence that gender would be a major predictor of open science involvement, highlighting gaps in research assumptions.
• Bertram, Michael G. et al. (2023) – “Open Science” – This Current Biology article acknowledged that barriers to open science are interconnected and can depend on researcher career stage, stability, gender, and ethnic identity, though without developing these concepts in detail.
• Kruschick, F.; Schoch, K. (2023) – “Knowledge equity and open science: An attempt to outline the field from a feminist research perspective” – This theoretical analysis examined intersectional feminist research principles in relation to open science, raising concerns about potential undermining of feminist methods while advocating for feminist engagement with open science movements.

4. Industry Practices and Open Science: Bridging Academic and Commercial Worlds

The exploration of industry practices in relation to open science revealed a complex landscape where traditional academic openness intersects with commercial imperatives, intellectual property concerns, and competitive dynamics. This domain required careful attention to the distinctions between open science and open innovation, whilst examining how industry engagement with openness varies significantly across sectors, organisational contexts, and strategic objectives.

The literature review employed search strategies that encompassed both “Open Science” and “Open Innovation” terminology, recognising that whilst open science is predominantly associated with academia, its principles are increasingly explored in industry, particularly in research-intensive sectors such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and technology. The team used multiple search combinations pairing openness concepts with industry-related terms including “industry”, “business”, “SMEs”, “enterprise”, “corporate”, “firm”, and “commerce”.

The SCOPUS search yielded five articles, of which four provided relevant content. The team supplemented this with Google Scholar investigations and drew extensively upon OPUS project work, including common interventions implemented across pilot organisations and analysis conducted by project partners working directly with industry networks.

Key Findings

The updated literature review revealed an evolving understanding of how industry engagement with open science and open innovation is developing, characterised by selective adoption, strategic implementation, and careful balance between openness and competitive protection. The analysis confirmed that industry adoption of open practices remains largely project-specific or experimental, often managed by particular departments or teams rather than representing organisation-wide commitments.

A 2023 study examining university-business collaboration under open science conditions provided important insights into the transformation of traditional knowledge transfer processes. The research identified intellectual property management and goal alignment between academic and commercial partners as persistent challenges, whilst highlighting the role of government policy in facilitating or hindering effective collaboration. The study emphasised that resolving process-related problems around knowledge exchange and intellectual rights could significantly improve trust levels and facilitate more effective knowledge sharing.

Innovative approaches to open innovation emerged from 2025 research examining data sharing in large, research-intensive firms. This work proposed that sharing unstructured data could represent a new pathway for competitive advantage through open innovation, challenging traditional assumptions about data as purely proprietary assets. The study developed a three-stage business model to support data sharing across different phases of open innovation, though the authors acknowledged limitations in terms of sample size and sector-specificity.

The concept of technology centres as intermediary organisations gained attention as a potential model for facilitating industry-academia collaboration. A 2024 Spanish analysis explored how technology centres could serve as cooperative partners within the triple helix model of university-industry-government interaction, suggesting that such intermediaries might be crucial for scaling open science practices in business contexts.

The OPUS project’s practical work with industry networks revealed several key patterns in industry engagement with open science and open innovation. Sectors with high research intensity, those addressing global challenges, and industries subject to regulatory encouragement showed the greatest adoption of open practices. Companies such as AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Johnson & Johnson in pharmaceuticals, Google DeepMind, Microsoft, and IBM in technology, and Enel, Siemens, and Ørsted in energy emerged as leaders in transparency, data sharing, and open collaboration.

The analysis identified both opportunities and challenges for industry engagement with open science. Opportunities included access to external expertise and resources, faster breakthrough innovations, improved market fit, risk reduction, talent attraction and retention, enhanced brand reputation, first-mover advantages, and knowledge transfer benefits. Challenges encompassed knowledge barriers related to intellectual property protection, data sensitivity and security concerns, collaboration barriers including trust issues and cultural differences, organisational resistance to change, financial and strategic implementation barriers, and difficulties in measuring return on investment.

Literature Related to Industry Practices and Open Science

The following publications informed this analysis:

Nikolai Kazantsev, et al. (2025) – “Leveraging Unstructured Data Sharing in Open Innovation: A Business Model for Large Research-Intensive Firms” – This innovative study examined how large firms could gain competitive advantage through data sharing in open innovation contexts, proposing new business models for balancing openness with commercial objectives.

María Núñez-Romero, et al. (2024) – “Cooperación en innovación con centros tecnológicos. Enfoque teórico” – This Spanish-language analysis explored innovation cooperation with technology centres, examining how intermediary organisations could facilitate university-industry collaboration within triple helix models.

Lukianenko DH, et al. (2023) – “University Competitiveness in the Knowledge Economy: A Kohonen Map Approach” – This conference paper examined factors of university competitiveness, proposing that open science, open innovation, and open education should guide innovation management within universities.

Zhanna V. Gornostaeva, et al. (2023) – “The Model of the Behaviour of Market Players in the Collaboration of Universities and Business Structures for the Support of the Digital Economy” – This analysis compared traditional and open science approaches to university-business collaboration, identifying key challenges around intellectual property and goal alignment.

Gao, Y., and M. Janssen (2023) – “The Open Data Canvas–Analysing Value Creation From Open Data” – This work provided frameworks for analysing value creation through open data initiatives, offering practical tools for business implementation.

Widder, David Gray, et al. (2023) – “Open (For Business): Big Tech, Concentrated Power, and the Political Economy of Open AI” – This critical analysis examined the complexity of open AI landscapes, warning about potential corporate co-optation of openness rhetoric whilst highlighting both opportunities and challenges for democratic access to AI systems.

5. Trust and Open Science: Building Confidence in Scientific Enterprise

The examination of trust in relation to open science revealed both the fundamental importance of trust for scientific credibility and the complex ways in which openness initiatives might enhance or challenge existing trust relationships. This analysis required attention to multiple dimensions of trust: public trust in science and scientists, trust among researchers and institutions, and trust in the processes and infrastructure supporting open science implementation.

The literature review employed targeted search strategies focusing on explicit connections between trust concepts and open science terminology. Search combinations included “open research” and “open science” paired with “trust in science”, “mistrust in science”, and “conflict of interest” terms. The team also examined broader combinations of “research” and “science” with trust-related terminology to capture relevant discourse that might not explicitly use open science language.

The SCOPUS search yielded nine articles, though only three provided content directly relevant to OPUS objectives, with others focusing primarily on trust and vaccines rather than broader open science questions. The team supplemented this with Google Scholar investigations and conducted searches through open-access book resources to access additional relevant literature.

Key Findings

The updated literature review provided valuable new evidence supporting the hypothesis that public trust can be enhanced through scientific openness, whilst continuing to reveal limited research on trust dynamics among scientists in relation to open science practices. The evidence base suggested that whilst theoretical connections between trust and openness are intuitive, empirical research demonstrating these relationships remains limited.

A significant 2024 international assessment examining trust in scientists across 68 countries provided insights into public perceptions of scientific trustworthiness. The study found that whilst most people in most countries trusted scientists and supported greater scientist engagement in society and policymaking, public perceptions of scientific openness were comparatively lower than perceptions of competence, benevolence, and integrity. This finding suggested that scientists seeking to enhance public trust should focus particularly on transparency regarding funding sources, data availability, and communication practices.

Multiple studies supported the proposition that open science practices could address trust challenges across different domains. A 2023 analysis of open science for the 21st century found that open practices “have the potential to address many of the problems of inequity, inaccuracy, and misconduct that plague research, as well as to build public trust”. Similarly, 2024 public health research demonstrated that science transparency and community engagement could address dual challenges of misinformation and eroded public trust, crucial for effective public health responses.

Disciplinary applications provided concrete examples of how open science might enhance trust relationships. A 2024 language testing study argued that open science could support trust by providing society with evidence from peer-reviewed validation studies demonstrating that test scores are useful, accurate, and fair. The analysis suggested that open science could foster equity by making research on language learning and testing available to all researchers regardless of ability to pay.

Critical analysis of academic publishing systems revealed how current practices might undermine trust relationships. A 2025 study examining peer review processes argued that confidentiality associated with traditional peer review creates “an opaque smoke-screen that prevents direct scrutiny of peer reviewers or editorial handling, and may be a contributing factor to the current crisis of mistrust in science and academic publishing”. The authors advocated for more open and transparent peer review processes as mechanisms for rebuilding trust.

Science communication emerged as a significant domain for understanding trust-openness relationships. 2025 analysis of science communication and trust argued that “amid ongoing global challenges such as health pandemics, climate change and environmental degradation, a nuanced discussion of the relational and contextual dynamics of trust has arguably never been more critical”. The work emphasised that trust must be “continually earned and sustained through credible, ethical and responsive communication practices”.

The OPUS project’s practical exploration of trust concepts through pilot organisation interventions revealed important insights into researcher perceptions of open science trustworthiness. The interventions confirmed concerns about open data protocols identified in the literature, but also revealed unexpected concerns about institutional open science policy frameworks, which researchers perceived as “too abstract, too top-down, and too often disconnected from the reality of scientific activity at the researcher level”.

Literature Related to Trust and Open Science

The following publications informed this analysis:

• Fage-Butler A., Ledderer L., Nielsen KH (Editors) (2025) – “Science Communication and Trust” – This edited volume examined relational and contextual dynamics of trust in science communication, emphasising the need for continual trust-building through credible, ethical, and responsive communication practices.
• Teixeira da Silva JA, Daly T (2025) – “No Reward without Responsibility: Focus on Peer Review Reports” – This analysis critiqued confidentiality in traditional peer review processes, arguing that opacity contributes to mistrust in science and academic publishing whilst advocating for more transparent review mechanisms.
• Bakhareva Y, et al. (2024) – “Issues of Trust and Motivation in Biobanking: A Literature Review” – This systematic review examined trust dynamics in biobanking contexts, providing insights into how trust operates in data-intensive research environments.
• Cologna, V et al. (2024) – “Trust in scientists and their role in society across 67 countries” – This major international study assessed public trust in scientists globally, finding generally high trust levels but identifying scientific openness as an area requiring improvement for trust enhancement.
• Kazantsev, Nazrul Islam, et al. (2023) – “Data sharing for business model innovation in platform ecosystems: From private data to public good” – This analysis examined how data-sharing in platform ecosystems affects business model innovation, exploring trust dynamics in commercial open data contexts.
• Widder, David Gray, et al. (2023) – “Open (For Business): Big Tech, Concentrated Power, and the Political Economy of Open AI” – This critical examination of open AI systems explored trust implications of corporate openness claims, warning about potential co-optation of openness rhetoric for competitive advantage.

Emerging Trends and Persistent Gaps in Open Science Assessment Reform

The overarching aim of the OPUS literature review was to systematically examine academic publications released since the project’s initial landscaping exercise to identify new evidence, emerging trends, and persistent gaps that could inform the project’s central questions about reforming research assessment systems to incentivise and reward open science practices. This objective encompassed both the project’s primary focus on research assessment transformation and its investigation of five interconnected dimensions that influence open science implementation.

The review sought to answer whether recent literature provided updated input to several critical questions being addressed within the OPUS project. For research assessment and incentives, the central question concerned what incentives and rewards exist or are needed to encourage open science adoption. For precarity, the inquiry focused on whether open science practices positively or negatively impact career security and whether precarious employment conditions facilitate or hinder open science adoption. Gender equality investigations examined whether recent evidence demonstrated clearer relationships between open science and gender equity advancement. Industry practice analysis explored benefits, challenges, and implementation strategies for open science in commercial contexts. Trust investigations sought evidence of connections between open science and various dimensions of trust in scientific enterprise.

The literature review revealed varying degrees of academic attention across these domains. Research assessment and incentives generated substantial new scholarship, confirming persistent problems with traditional metrics-based systems and providing empirical evidence about researcher preferences for qualitative assessment approaches supplemented by quantitative measures. This area produced actionable insights for policy development, including the finding that researchers most favour inclusion of open science indicators in evaluation processes over purely financial incentives.

In contrast, the precarity-open science relationship remained virtually unexplored in recent academic literature, with the review identifying critical gaps in understanding how career insecurity and open science practices interact. This absence of evidence proved particularly significant given the theoretical importance of the relationship and its potential implications for open science policy effectiveness.

Gender equality analysis revealed continued complexity and context-dependency in open science-gender relationships, with evidence suggesting that whilst open science principles align with equity values, implementation contexts significantly influence whether these principles translate into gender equality advancement. The literature confirmed the need for intersectional approaches and careful attention to power dynamics within open science initiatives.

Industry practices generated moderate new scholarship focused primarily on specific sectors and collaborative mechanisms, revealing selective and strategic adoption patterns rather than wholesale industry transformation. Trust analysis provided valuable new evidence supporting public trust enhancement through scientific openness, though research on trust among scientists remained limited.

Research Assessment Reform Holds Centre Stage in Global Academic and Policy Debates

The OPUS Work Package 1 literature review provided insights into the evolving academic discourse around open science implementation, revealing both areas of scholarly attention and persistent gaps requiring further research investment. The analysis across five interconnected domains demonstrated the complexity of open science transformation whilst identifying concrete evidence to support policy development and practical intervention design.

The review confirmed that research assessment reform remains at the forefront of academic and policy debate, with substantial new evidence supporting the need for systems that better recognise and reward open science practices. The finding that researchers prefer qualitative assessment approaches supplemented by quantitative measures provides important guidance for institutions seeking to implement assessment reforms. Similarly, the identification of researcher preferences for policy-based incentives over purely financial rewards offers valuable insights for funding organisations and institutional leaders.

However, the literature review also highlighted significant gaps in academic understanding, particularly around the relationships between career precarity and open science adoption. This absence of evidence represents a critical vulnerability in open science policy development, given the potential importance of career security considerations in researcher decision-making about open science participation. The limited attention to these questions suggests an urgent need for longitudinal studies examining how career insecurity influences open science adoption and whether open science practices affect career advancement prospects.

Gender equality analysis revealed the continuing complexity of intersectional relationships within open science contexts. Whilst the literature confirmed theoretical alignments between open science principles and gender equity values, the evidence demonstrated that implementation contexts, power dynamics, and cultural factors significantly influence whether these principles translate into practical equality advancement. This finding emphasises the need for careful, context-sensitive approaches to gender equality integration within open science initiatives.

Industry engagement with open science showed selective adoption patterns characterised by strategic implementation rather than transformation. The identification of leading sectors and organisations provides valuable models for broader industry engagement, whilst the analysis of opportunities and challenges offers practical guidance for organisations considering open science adoption. The emergence of data sharing and open innovation models suggests evolving approaches to balancing openness with competitive imperatives.

Trust analysis provided encouraging evidence that open science practices can enhance public confidence in scientific enterprise, whilst revealing limited research on trust dynamics among researchers themselves. The finding that public perceptions of scientific openness lag behind other trustworthiness dimensions suggests specific areas for improvement in scientific communication and transparency practices.

The OPUS literature review ultimately demonstrated that whilst academic discourse around open science continues to evolve, significant research gaps persist in understanding the complex interactions between open science implementation and broader systemic factors affecting research culture. These gaps highlight opportunities for future research investment whilst providing a foundation for the practical interventions and metrics development that formed the subsequent phases of the OPUS project.

The systematic approach employed throughout this literature review ensured consistency with earlier project work whilst adapting to the evolving academic landscape. This methodological rigour enabled the project to trace academic discourse development over time, identifying both emerging consensus around key issues and persistent areas of uncertainty requiring further investigation. The resulting evidence base provided input to the project’s practical outputs whilst highlighting directions for future research and policy development in the critical domain of open science implementation.