A study exploring the academic impact of Open Science has been published in the journal Royal Society Open Science. This key output of the PathOS project represents a significant step forward in understanding how Open Science drives academic benefits, shedding light on both its potential and the challenges that remain to be addressed.  

Authored by Thomas Klebel (Open and Reproducible Research Group, Know Center Research GmbH, Austria), Vincent Traag (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Netherlands), Ioanna Grypari (Athena Research Center and OpenAIRE, Greece), Lennart Stoy (Technopolis Group, Belgium), and Tony Ross-Hellauer (Open and Reproducible Research Group, Know Center Research GmbH, Austria), the study addresses a critical gap in the Open Science landscape: the systematic synthesis of evidence regarding its academic impacts.

Understanding the Academic Impact of Open Science

Open Science seeks to make research processes and outputs more accessible, transparent, and inclusive, ensuring that scientific findings can be freely shared, scrutinized, and built upon. Despite its transformative promise, until now, no comprehensive review has synthesized the extent to which Open Science fulfills these ambitions in the academic domain.

Using the PRISMA scoping review methodology, the authors analyzed 485 studies covering a wide range of Open Science dimensions, such as Open Access, Open/FAIR Data, Open Code/Software, Open Evaluation, and Citizen Science.

Key Findings

The review highlights a broad range of academic impacts of Open Science practices:

• Citations: Open Access and Open and FAIR Data were associated with increased citations, particularly for preprints and certain types of Open Access. However, the citation advantage varies by Open Access type.
• Quality: Open Peer Review showed moderately positive to neutral effects on review quality. The quality of Citizen Science data was comparable to traditional sources when volunteers received adequate training.
• Efficiency and Productivity: Open Access and Citizen Science practices demonstrated cost savings and increased speed of dissemination, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, efficiency impacts of Open Peer Review and Open and FAIR Data were mixed.
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion: While Open Access encouraged international collaboration and diverse citations, inequities such as the article processing charge barrier and limited access to resources for data reuse disproportionately affected less resourced researchers.
• Reuse and Reproducibility: Positive impacts were noted in reuse and reproducibility, particularly with structured preregistrations and registered reports. However, reproducibility faced challenges due to high reproduction costs and limitations in Open Methods.
• Ethics and Trust: Open Science badges increased trust in results, but ethical concerns were flagged regarding participant re-identification risks and data colonialism in Open and FAIR Data practices.

In summary, while most studies found positive or mixed impacts of Open Science, the review also identified unintended negative impacts, especially in relation to equity, diversity, and inclusion. A major barrier to the academic impact of Open Science remains the lack of skills, resources, and infrastructure to effectively reuse and build on existing research.

The PathOS project aims to advance the understanding and implementation of Open Science to enhance its societal impact. More information on PathOS can be found at PathOS Project.

 Read the study here

For media inquiries, please contact: Thomas Klebel, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.