Abstract
"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 485 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."
"s 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 partia
lly address
this gap, scoping evidence on the academic (but not societal or economic) impacts of OS. We
identify 48
9
studies related to all aspects of OS, including Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data
(OFD), Open Code/Software, Open Evaluation, and Citizen Sc
ience (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 rep
orting 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 policyOpen 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 partia
lly address
this gap, scoping evidence on the academic (but not societal or economic) impacts of OS. We
identify 48
9
studies related to all aspects of OS, including Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data
(OFD), Open Code/Software, Open Evaluation, and Citizen Sc
ience (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 rep
orting 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