Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41382220›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2025

Open science and epistemic equity: opportunities and challenges in the contemporary research ecosystem.

Robert Farrow

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Robert FarrowInstitute of Educational Technology, The Open University (UK), Walton Hall, Kents Hill, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK. rob.farrow@open.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7625-8396

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The contemporary context for open science is characterised by growing international policy momentum toward more transparent, inclusive, and collaborative scientific practices which build on the transformative potential of openness to enhance research equity, reproducibility, and collaboration. However, the shift from aspiration to implementation remains uneven and contested. Persistent structural challenges (e.g. misaligned incentives, disparities in infrastructure, and uneven access to funding and training) risk reinforcing rather than dismantling existing inequalities. The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, particularly generative AI (GenAI), raises new concerns about epistemic authority, research integrity, and the ownership of knowledge. While AI could accelerate discovery and increase access to scientific information, it may also amplify exclusionary dynamics or prohibit the transparency open science aims to promote. This commentary paper describes how the unfolding integration of AI into research practices intersects with the goals and challenges of open science, particularly in relation to equity and inclusion. I surface the tensions between open science and research equity, examining how the changing technological landscapes intersect with long-standing socioeconomic and structural barriers. The paper argues for renewed attention to the normative foundations of open science, particularly regarding intellectual property, inclusive infrastructure, and equitable participation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceKnowledgeScienceAcademiaDiversity, Equity, InclusionHumansIntellectual Property

Identifiers

PMID41382220
PMCPMC12699889

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.