Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40322273›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

Towards an inclusive Open Science: examining EDI and public participation in policy documents across Europe and the Americas.

Natascha Chtena, Juan Pablo Alperin, Esteban Morales, Alice Fleerackers, Isabelle Dorsch, Stephen Pinfield, Marc-André Simard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Natascha ChtenaSchool of Publishing, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3586-5372
Juan Pablo AlperinSchool of Publishing, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Esteban MoralesResearch Centre for Media and Journalism Studies, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Alice FleerackersDepartment of Media Studies, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Isabelle DorschZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany.
Stephen PinfieldResearch on Research Institute (RoRI), London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4696-764X
Marc-André SimardÉcole de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'information, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

National, international and organizational Open Science (OS) policies are being formulated to improve and accelerate research through increased transparency, collaboration and better access to scientific knowledge. Yet, there is mounting concern that OS policies do not effectively capture the ethos of OS, and particularly its goal of making science more collaborative, inclusive and socially engaged. This study explores how OS is conceptualized in emerging OS policies and to what extent notions of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI), as well as public participation are reflected in policy guidelines and recommendations. We use a qualitative document research approach to critically analyse 52 OS policy documents published between January 2020 and December 2022 in Europe and the Americas. Our results show that OS policies overwhelmingly focus on making research outputs publicly accessible, neglecting to advance the two aspects of OS that hold the key to achieving an equitable and inclusive scientific culture-namely, EDI and public participation. While these concepts are often mentioned and even embraced in OS policy documents, concrete guidance on how they can be promoted in practice is overwhelmingly lacking. Rather than advancing the openness of scientific findings first and promoting EDI and public participation efforts second, we argue that incentives and guidelines must be provided and implemented concurrently to advance the OS movement's stated goal of making science open to all.

Indexed as

EDIOpen Sciencepublic participationscience policy

Identifiers

PMID40322273
PMCPMC12046529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.