Open Science, Social Impact, and Research Evidence
Cole et al.’s (2024) scoping review represents a significant contribution to the understanding of how Open Science (OS) practices can generate societal impact. By systematically aggregating evidence from 196 studies across both academic and grey literature, the authors offer a comprehensive account of the multifaceted effects of OS on society. Below is a review that critically examines the article’s implications, while connecting its findings to the broader scholarly literature.
Overview of the Study
Cole et al. (2024) set out to map and synthesize the evidence regarding the societal impact of OS initiatives. Employing the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews methodology, the study identifies and categorizes evidence across several OS practices—including Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software, and, most prominently, Citizen Science (CS). The authors distinguish between different dimensions of societal impact (e.g., education and awareness, climate/environment, policy/governance, social engagement, equity, and health) and reveal that most of the extant evidence pertains to CS initiatives. Although the review highlights positive impacts in areas such as learning, environmental awareness, and community engagement, it also points out gaps (e.g., limited evidence on the societal effects of OFD and open methods) and methodological challenges in establishing causality.
Cultural Implications
Economic Implications
Policy Implications
Social Implications
Critical Evaluation and Future Directions
Future studies might address these gaps by employing mixed-methods research designs that combine quantitative impact assessments with qualitative insights into stakeholder experiences. Such approaches could better capture the nuanced ways in which OS reshapes cultural norms, economic practices, political decision-making, and social interactions.
Conclusion
References
Cole, N. L., Kormann, E., Klebel, T., Apartis, S., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2024). The societal impact of Open Science: A scoping review. Royal Society Open Science, 11, 240286. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240286
Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science (pp. 17–47). Springer.
Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2019). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review. F1000Research, 8, 1444. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19702.1
UNESCO. (2017). Recommendation on Open Science. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247661
[Edited by Pablo Markin. The initial draft has been generated using ChatGPT, OpenAI (February 28, 2025).]
[Support the Open Access Blog: https://ko-fi.com/theopenaccessblogs]
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (March 3, 2025). Open Science, Social Impact, and Research Evidence. Open Access Blog. Retrieved April 22, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/13evi