Stakeholders' perceptions of the synergy between intellectual property and open science: A cross-sectional survey.

Background: The potential for intellectual property (IP) and open science (OS) to be used together for knowledge valorisation is increasingly discussed within research policy, yet their practical alignment remains limited. While researchers and research managers often regard IP and OS as potentially complementary, uncertainty persists about how to integrate them effectively in real-world contexts. Methods: To explore current perceptions and practices, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted, yielding 177 valid responses from individuals involved in research and research management across a range of research-performing organisations, primarily within Europe. Results: Although respondents were generally optimistic about the possibility of combining IP and OS, concrete examples of successful synergy remain rare. A lack of clear institutional guidance, limited awareness of open licensing mechanisms, and uncertainty about concurrent implementation were identified as key barriers. In collaborative projects, especially those involving multiple partners, differing objectives further complicate efforts to coordinate IP and OS strategies. National differences in legal frameworks across EU member states were also seen as an obstacle to synergy. The roles of knowledge transfer offices and OS ambassadors were highlighted as particularly important for supporting researchers in navigating complex decisions about licensing and compliance. However, sustained engagement with these actors remains inconsistent. Conclusions: To enable greater complementarity between IP and OS, early agreement on approaches within project management is essential. Researchers would benefit from targeted training to enhance understanding of open licensing tools and practical considerations. In addition, policy measures such as recognising OS contributions in academic career evaluation and introducing grace periods for patent filing could provide valuable support. These steps may assist institutions in managing the balance between openness and protection more effectively, encouraging broader and more confident application of both frameworks in practice. The study's findings should be interpreted with caution due to the small, purposive sample and potential response bias, which may limit generalisability.