The Academic Impact of Open Science: Scoping Review

• September 9, 2024

Introduction: Open Science (OS) represents a paradigm shift in how research is conducted and shared, promoting transparency, accessibility, and inclusivity across all stages of the scientific process. By embracing principles such as Open Access (OA), FAIR Data (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), Open Code, and Citizen Science (CS), OS aims to democratize knowledge, allowing for broader participation and collaboration in research. However, while the potential benefits of OS are widely touted, there has been limited systematic research on the academic impacts of these practices. To address this gap, a recent scoping review synthesizes evidence on the academic impacts of Open Science, examining its effects on areas such as citations, research quality, efficiency, equity, and reproducibility.

Methodology: The study employed the PRISMA scoping review methodology to analyze 489 studies related to various aspects of Open Science. The review focused on the academic impacts of OS practices, intentionally excluding societal and economic impacts. Key areas of interest included Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software, Open Evaluation, and Citizen Science (CS). The analysis sought to uncover patterns, both positive and negative, in the academic impact of OS, as well as identify gaps in the existing literature.

Key Findings

1. Open Access (OA): A Major Focus: Open Access emerged as the most extensively studied aspect of Open Science, with 233 relevant studies identified. The primary focus of these studies was the Open Access Citation Advantage (OACA), which posits that OA publications tend to receive higher citation counts due to their increased accessibility. Of the 160 studies that specifically investigated citations, 47.8% reported an OACA, while 27.6% found no advantage, and 23.9% identified an advantage only in specific contexts such as certain journals, disciplines, or timeframes. However, the review highlights significant methodological heterogeneity in how these studies measure both citation impact and Open Access status, complicating the interpretation of results.
2. Equity in Open Access Publishing: Another major concern within the OA literature is equity, particularly regarding the financial barriers posed by Article Processing Charges (APCs). APCs have been shown to exacerbate existing inequities in global publishing, disproportionately affecting researchers from low- and middle-income countries. While OA improves access to research for readers, it often creates new barriers for researchers seeking to publish their work, leading to stratification in the academic publishing landscape.
3. Preprints and Efficiency: Preprints, which allow researchers to share non-peer-reviewed manuscripts publicly, have become an important aspect of OS, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The review identified 14 studies on preprints, with most reporting positive impacts on the efficiency of scholarly communication. Preprints were also associated with increased citation counts, although the review cautions that selection bias may overestimate the quality and impact of preprinted research.
4. Citizen Science (CS): Broadening Participation: Citizen Science, which involves the active participation of non-professional scientists in research, was the second most studied area of OS, with 129 relevant studies. CS has been praised for its potential to democratize science by involving diverse communities in the research process. However, the review found mixed evidence regarding the academic impact of CS. While some studies reported positive effects on research quality, others highlighted challenges related to the validation and reproducibility of citizen-generated data.
5. Open/FAIR Data: Enhancing Reusability: FAIR data principles, which aim to make data more reusable, were the focus of 67 studies. The review found that Open/FAIR Data practices generally had positive impacts on research efficiency, transparency, and reproducibility. However, significant barriers remain, particularly in terms of the skills, resources, and infrastructure required to effectively share and reuse data.
6. Barriers to Academic Impact: Across all aspects of Open Science, the review identified several key barriers to maximizing academic impact. These include a lack of necessary skills and resources, as well as inadequate infrastructure for effectively sharing, reusing, and building on existing research. Additionally, the review highlighted unintended negative impacts of OS practices, particularly in terms of equity, diversity, and inclusion. For example, while Open Access improves access for readers, it may exacerbate disparities in publishing opportunities for researchers from underrepresented regions or institutions.

Implications for Future Research and Policy: The scoping review underscores the need for more nuanced, context-specific research on the academic impacts of Open Science. While the majority of studies report positive or mixed outcomes, significant gaps remain, particularly in understanding the causal pathways that link OS practices to academic impact. The review also calls for greater attention to the unintended consequences of Open Science, particularly in terms of equity and inclusion. Policymakers and institutions should focus on addressing these barriers, ensuring that the benefits of OS are equitably distributed across the global research community.

Open Science holds great promise for enhancing the accessibility, transparency, and inclusivity of research. However, realizing these benefits requires concerted efforts to overcome the barriers identified in this review. By fostering the necessary skills, resources, and infrastructure, the academic community can ensure that Open Science fulfills its potential to transform research for the better.

Klebel, T., Traag, V., Grypari, I., Stoy, L., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2024, July 21). The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ptjub