Deliverables & Publications
Below is a list of all PathOS deliverables & publications. Hyperlinks will be added to all as they become available. Watch this space!
PathOS Publications
The APC-Barrier and its effect on stratification in open access publishing | Current implementations of Open Access (OA) publishing frequently involve article processing charges (APCs). Increasing evidence has emerged that APCs impede researchers with fewer resources in publishing their research as OA. We analyzed 1.5 million scientific articles from journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals to assess average APCs and their determinants for a comprehensive set of journal publications across scientific disciplines, world regions, and through time. Klebel, Thomas, and Tony Ross-Hellauer. "The APC-barrier and its effect on stratification in open access publishing." Quantitative Science Studies 4.1 (2023): 22-43. | Read more |
Introduction to causality in science studies (preprint) | Sound causal inference is crucial for advancing the study of science. Incorrectly interpreting predictive effects as causal might be ineffective or even detrimental to policy recommendations. Many publications in science studies lack appropriate methods to substantiate their causal claims. We here provide an introduction to structural causal models.
Klebel, Thomas, and Vincent Traag. Introduction to causality in science studies. No. 4bw9e. Center for Open Science, 2024.
| Read more |
The societal impact of Open Science: a scoping review | Open Science (OS) aims, in part, to drive greater societal impact of academic research. Government, funder and institutional policies state that it should further democratize research and increase learning and awareness, evidence-based policy-making, the relevance of research to society's problems, and public trust in research. Yet, measuring the societal impact of OS has proven challenging and synthesized evidence of it is lacking. This study fills this gap by systematically scoping the existing evidence of societal impact driven by OS and its various aspects, including Citizen Science (CS), Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software and others. Using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews and searches conducted in Web of Science, Scopus and relevant grey literature, we identified 196 studies that contain evidence of societal impact. The majority concern CS, with some focused on OA, and only a few addressing other aspects. Key areas of impact found are education and awareness, climate and environment, and social engagement. We found no literature documenting evidence of the societal impact of OFD and limited evidence of societal impact in terms of policy, health, and trust in academic research. Our findings demonstrate a critical need for additional evidence and suggest practical and policy implications. Cole Nicki Lisa, Kormann Eva, Klebel Thomas, Apartis Simon and Ross-Hellauer Tony, The societal impact of Open Science: a scoping review, Royal Society Open Science, 2024
| Read more |
The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review | Open Science seeks to make research processes and outputs more accessible, transparent, and inclusive, ensuring that scientific findings can be freely shared, scrutinised, and built-upon by researchers and others. To date, there has been no systematic synthesis of the extent to which Open Science reaches these aims. We use the PRISMA scoping review methodology to partially address this gap, scoping evidence on the academic (but not societal or economic) impacts of OS. We identify 489 studies related to all aspects of OS, including Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software, Open Evaluation, and Citizen Science (CS). Analysing and synthesising findings, we show that the majority of studies investigated effects of OA, CS, and OFD. Key areas of impact studied are citations, quality, efficiency, equity, reuse, ethics, and reproducibility, with most studies reporting positive or at least mixed impacts. However, we also identified significant unintended negative impacts, especially those regarding equity, diversity and inclusion. Overall, the main barrier to academic impact of OS is lack of skills, resources, and infrastructure to effectively reuse and build on existing research. Building on this synthesis we identify gaps within this literature and draw implications for future research and policy.
Klebel Thomas, Traag Vincet, Grypari Ioanna, Stoy Lennart, & Ross-Hellauer Tony. The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review. Royal Society Open Science, 2025 | Read more |
Monitoring Open Science: Open Science Indicator Handbook of the PathOS project and its implementation in repositories. | The original article published in Portuguese PathOS is a Horizon Europe project that aims to gather evidence of the effects of Open Science by studying impact pathways (context, resources, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts), conducting an extensive literature review, studying causal effects, drawing up an Open Science Indicator Handbook and applying the selected indicators to six case studies, four of which are based on publication repositories, data repositories and open infrastructures. The aim of this article is to detail the indicators selected for these case studies and their operationalization within the scope of the project.
Antónia Correia, Pedro Prínc, Paula Moura, André Vieira, Investigação e Inovação Aberta e Responsável , Ciência da Informação: v. 53 n. 3 (2024): 15ª Conferência Lusófona de Ciência Aberta (ConfOA). | Read more |
The economic impact of Open Science: a scoping review (preprint) | This paper summarised a comprehensive scoping review of the economic impact of Open Science (OS), examining empirical evidence from 2000 to 2023. It focuses on Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Source Software (OSS), and Open Methods, assessing their contributions to efficiency gains in research production, innovation enhancement, and economic growth. Evidence, although limited, indicates that OS accelerates research processes, reduces the related costs, fosters innovation by improving access to data and resources and this ultimately generates economic growth. Specific sectors, such as life sciences, are researched more and the literature exhibits substantial gains, mainly thanks to OFD and OA. OSS supports productivity, while the very limited studies on Open Methods indicate benefits in terms of productivity gains and innovation enhancement. However, gaps persist in the literature, particularly in fields like Citizen Science and Open Evaluation, for which no empirical findings on economic impact could be detected. Despite limitations, empirical evidence on specific cases highlight economic benefits. This review underscores the need for further metrics and studies across diverse sectors and regions to fully capture OS's economic potential.
Tsipouri, Lena, Sofia Liarti, Silvia Vignetti, and Izabella M. Grapengiesser. “The Economic Impact of Open Science: A Scoping Review.” MetaArXiv, 2025 | Read more |
PathOS Deliverables
D1.1 Open Science intervention logic | Open Science intervention logic. | Read more |
D1.2 Scoping Review of Models, Evidence, Correlations and Causalities within Open Science Impact | The report will collect knowledge to date (from peer-reviewed and grey literature) on models, evidence, correlations and causalities within Open Science impact, collected and synthesised via a PRISMA-SCR methodology. Check out scoping reviews on societal and academic impact: Cole Nicki Lisa, Kormann Eva, Klebel Thomas, Apartis Simon and Ross-Hellauer Tony. The societal impact of Open Science: a scoping review. Royal Society Open Science, 2024 Klebel Thomas, Traag Vincet, Grypari Ioanna, Stoy Lennart, & Ross-Hellauer Tony. The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review. Open Science Framework, 2024 Tsipouri, Lena, Sofia Liarti, Silvia Vignetti, and Izabella M. Grapengiesser. The Economic Impact of Open Science: A Scoping Review. MetaArXiv, 2025 | Read more |
D1.3 Key Impact Pathways for the open science framework | This report explores the impacts of Open Science (OS) practices with the scope of a proof-ofconcept study using the impact pathway concept described in PathOS D1.1 (Dekker et al., 2023). Based on previous data collected by PathOS, particularly from the scoping review by Klebel et al. (2024) and empirical case studies conducted by Cole et al. (2023), this report customizes, tests, and validates the Key Impact Pathway (KIP) approach in the context of Open Science. The resulting information is used to generate high-level impact chains, displayed as intervention logics, of Open Science practices. Three such preliminary pathways indicating the impacts of different Open Science activities are identified in the report: 1) Citizen Science, 3) Open Access pathway, 3) Impacts on climate and environment. | Read more |
D1.4 Validated model of Key OS Impact Pathways and guidelines/recommendations | This report will synthesise findings from across the project to present a coherent vision of Open Science Impact Pathways and present co-created multi-stakeholder policy guidelines and recommendations for future interventions to maximise these impacts - Coming Soon. | |
D2.1 & D2.2 A data driven methodology for reproducibility indicators and Handbook of OS indicators (first version) | A data driven methodology for reproducibility indicators and a report on of indicators, data sources and approaches. Includes discussion of challenges and opportunities for identifying causal effects of open science. You can access the Handbook here. | Read more |
D2.3 A Handbook of OS indicators (final) | A report on indicators, data sources and approaches. Includes discussion of challenges and opportunities for identifying causal effects of open science - Coming Soon. | |
D3.1 Case studies for evaluation of open science impact | Case studies for evaluation of open science impact. | Read more |
D3.2 and D3.5 Data Management Plan | The Data Management Plan (DMP) will outline how data will be handled during the project, and after its finalisation. | Read more |
D3.3 Open Science Impact Indicators for Case studies Final report | Open Science Impact Indicators for Case studies Final report - Coming Soon. | |
D3.4 Data and tools for the long-term evaluation of open science | Data and tools for the long-term evaluation of open science - Coming Soon. | |
D4.1 Methodological note on the CBA of open science practices | The note presents the CBA framework specifically tailored to open science practices. | Read more |
D4.2 Methodological note on the CBA of open science practices - update | An updated methodological note on the CBA of open science practices - Coming Soon. | |
D4.3 CBA case studies 1 | The report will include 2-3 case studies, each showing the results of a cost-benefit analysis of selected open science practice - Coming Soon. | |
D4.4 CBA case studies 2 | The report will include 2-3 case studies, each showing the results of a cost-benefit analysis of selected open science practice - Coming Soon. | |
D5.1 Communication, Engagement and Dissemination Plan | Guidelines for communication, engagement and dissemination. | Read more |
D5.2 Training plan | This document introduces the training plan for PathOS. This is the first version of the initial activity plan for the PathOS training program. The training plan will be updated (in M23, July 2024) to include more comprehensive details and reflect evolving project needs. For now, this training plan focuses on the Handbook of Open Science Indicators and the Cost-Benefit Analysis for Open Science. | Read more |
D5.3 Exploitation Plan I | Report listing the Key Exploitable Results of the project and responsible partners, including planned exploitation timelines and pathways. | Read more |
D5.4 Exploitation Plan II | The final version of the exploitation plan - Coming Soon. | |
D5.5 Policy Brief 1 | Short policy brief on the expected impact from the project (internal document) | |
D5.6 Policy Brief 2 | Policy Brief 2 - Coming Soon | |
D6.1 Project Management and Quality Guidelines: Handbook | Describes PathOS internal management procedures, detailing the project’s Quality assurance process (internal document) | |
D7.1 OEI - Requirement No. 1 | Appointment of an independent Ethics Advisor to monitor the ethics issues involved in this project and how they are handled. | |
D7.2 OEI - Requirement No. 2 | A report by the independent Ethics Advisor, covering the 1st reporting period. | |
D7.3 OEI - Requirement No. 3 | A report by the independent Ethics Advisor, covering the 2nd reporting period. |
