ReviewBrazilian oral research2026
Implementing is necessary: the gap between discourse and practice in global open science.
Review in Brazilian oral research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open science aims to promote more transparent, collaborative, and accessible practices in the scientific process. However, barriers such as fear of exposure or reluctance to share data and methods make researchers hesitant to amply engage with this movement. This study analyzes the global open science movement and the persistent gap between its discourse and practice. Based on a critical narrative review of historical milestones, the analysis demonstrates that although open science promotes transparency, collaboration, reproducibility, and stronger connections among science, society, and policy, its adoption remains uneven and limited. Individual barriers, such as a lack of training and fear of misuse, along with institutional obstacles related to publishing models, evaluation metrics, and financial constraints, hinder the full implementation of open practices. Contrastingly, significant benefits are evident, including cost reduction, acceleration of scientific progress through data reuse, and reinforcement of evidence-based public policies. Worldwide experiences highlight both the advances and inequalities in access and infrastructure, demonstrating that the global impact of open science depends on more equitable participation. In conclusion, bridging the gap between discourse and practice requires structural changes in research evaluations, cultural shifts that prioritize collective knowledge, and stronger integration between researchers, policymakers, and society. Implementing open science is essential to ensure that knowledge production truly serves global development and social equity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.