KEY TAKEAWAY
- The first global study on trends and standards in open science highlights some good practices, but also warns of inequities.
Recent data from UNESCO show a mixed outlook for the adoption of open science practices around the world. While some progress has been made in recent years, more still needs to be done to ensure specific initiatives, such as open access publishing, translate into truly equitable access to science.
In 2021, UNESCO published an international framework for the advancement of open science. Adopted by 193 countries, the Recommendation on Open Science outlined common values, principles, and guidelines for achieving open science globally. At the end of last year, the organisation shared its first global comprehensive assessment of trends and standards in open science. A recent editorial published in Nature commented on the key findings. Among its positive insights were:
- an increase in spending on ‘societal engagement’ projects by the European Commission from 2002 to 2020
- mandated open access publishing for research data arising from the EU Horizon 2020 programme
- the establishment of a national infrastructure sharing scheme for scientific research in Brazil
- progress towards building a national open science policy to improve the scrutiny, transparency, and reproducibility of research in South Africa.
While the report acknowledged a clear increase in open access publishing, it warned that focusing on scientific outputs is only part of the picture. As UNESCO emphasise:
“Open science is about making sure not only that scientific knowledge is accessible but also that the production of that knowledge itself is inclusive, equitable and sustainable.”
Indeed, Ismael Rafols (UNESCO Chair on Diversity and Inclusion in Global Science) highlights in his recent blog post at Leiden Madtrics that there is a danger of creating a ‘streetlight effect’, whereby the focus of policy on measurable outputs causes the underlying open science principles to be neglected.
Another issue with current open science practices — highlighted by Rafols – is the high costs associated with some models of open access publishing, which can put scientists in lower-income countries at a disadvantage. The open access publisher eLife has recognised this territorial inequity and recently established the Global South Committee for Open Science. The initiative unites researchers who are minoritised on the basis of their nation’s socioeconomic or political status, to increase their representation in the global scientific community.
Of course, all scientific stakeholders should support the principles of open science. Now is a good time for us to reflect on how we, as individuals and within our own organisations, can help further the true spirit of the movement.
————————————————–
