Volume isn't openness: misaligned assessment and Open Science adoption in Ecuador

Abstract:  Open Science aims to make research more transparent, reusable, and socially valuable, yet adoption may lag where assessment emphasizes journal prestige over openness. This study examines how research-assessment incentives align with Open Science practices in Ecuador and identifies policy levers associated with change. Using a mixed-methods design, we combine a review of national and institutional policies, a bibliometric analysis of Ecuador-affiliated outputs from 2013–2023, and a nationwide researcher survey (n ≈ 418), analyzed with multilevel logistic models, multinomial logit, and negative binomial regressions. Scientific output increased markedly, peaking at 5,070 articles in 2023; 66.7% were open access, predominantly via gold routes. In 2021, 59.3% of citations were self-citations. Despite high familiarity with Open Science (85%), implementation was limited: 22% reported depositing data and 35% publishing via diamond or gold routes. Greater reliance on journal-centric metrics was associated with lower odds of adopting open practices (odds ratio ≈ 0.72), while comprehensive institutional support—repositories with deposit mandates, research-data services, and licensing guidance—was associated with higher odds (odds ratio ≈ 1.65). Sensitivity to article processing charges was associated with shifts toward green and diamond routes. Findings suggest that socio-institutional factors dominate barriers and that aligning rules, services, and responsible assessment may help make openness the default, improving quality, equity, and reuse.