We define academic impact with Ravenscroft et al. as “the impact that scientific research has within the academic sphere” (Ravenscroft et al. 2017), hence distinguishing it from broader impacts upon society or the economy. Impacts are “long-lasting, elementary and wide-spread change” that result from the implementation of Open Science practices and process. They can be either “direct or indirect, intended or unintended, [and] relate to behavioural and/or systemic changes” (Dekker et al. 2023).

Our results show that Open Science has a range of academic impacts, from increased citations and research quality to equity and efficiency. However, most evidence is context-specific, with variation across disciplines, Open Science modes, and local conditions. Many findings remain correlational rather than definitively causal, and certain effects may be inconsistent or specific to certain disciplines or other contexts.

We define societal impacts from Open Science as “long-lasting, elementary and wide-spread change” that result from the implementation of Open Science practices and process. They can be either “direct or indirect, intended or unintended, [and] relate to behavioural and/or systemic changes” (Dekker et al. 2023).

Societal impact pathways refer to the mechanisms through which Open Science practices generate impacts in society, both positive and negative. The PathOS project provides a conceptual foundation for understanding how Open Science may generate societal impact. As elaborated in the introduction of this report, we understand Open Science as enabling three key things: access to research outputs, transparency of the research process, and participation of diverse actors in research.

Economic impacts of Open Science are understood as the long-lasting changes in the economic sphere experienced by users of Open Science artifacts (academic and industrial researchers but also government, civil society, NGOs and society at large), processes and collaborations. We do not address the economics of the publishing sector and its business models. Economic impact measurement faces significant methodological challenges, as economic impact indicators remain less developed compared to academic metrics, and establishing causal attribution across longer time horizons is inherently difficult.

While theoretical arguments for economic impact are well-developed, empirical evidence hashistorically been limited.

• Economic rationale stems from the key concept of knowledge as a public good. The key argument is that Open Science increases research productivity and academic impact leads to economic consequences thanks to higher and quicker uptake of research results by other scientists in academia and industry, also thanks to science-industry collaboration. This process affects the private sector and ultimately drives societal impacts.
• There are also counterarguments: because individuals and companies want to benefit from the new knowledge they create, they may strategically delay publication and data sharing.

Economic impact pathways delineate the causal mechanisms and sequential processes through which Open Science practices generate economic value. PathOS contributes to the empirical evidence base through systematic case study analysis across diverse contexts, offering new insights into economic pathways and their mechanisms. These methodological approaches help illuminate how Open Science practices generate economic value, though significant evidence gaps remain. Economic impact pathways delineate the causal mechanisms and sequential processes through which these practices operate.