Open science at the science–policy interface: bringing in the evidence?

Abstract

Part of the current enthusiasm about open science stems from its promises to reform scientific practice in service of the common good, to ensure that scientific outputs will be found and reused more easily, and to enhance scientific impact on policy and society. With this article, we question this optimism by analysing the potential for open science practices to enhance research uptake at the science–policy interface. Science advice is critical to help policy-makers make informed decisions. Likewise, some interpretations of open science hold that making research processes and outputs more transparent and accessible will also enhance the uptake of results by policy and society at large. However, we argue that this hope is based on an unjustifiably simplistic understanding of the science–policy interface that leaves key terms (“impact”, “uptake”) undefined. We show that this understanding—based upon linear models of research uptake—likewise grounds the influential “evidence–policy gap” diagnosis which holds that to improve research uptake, communication and interaction between researchers and policy-makers need to be improved. The overall normative stance of both discussions has sidelined empirical description of the science–policy interface, ignoring questions about the underlying differences between the policy domain and academia. Importantly, both open science and literature on closing the evidence–policy gap recommend improving communication (in terms of either the content or the means) as a viable strategy. To correct some of these views, we combine insights from policy theory with a narrative review of the literature on the evidence–policy gap in the health domain and find that removing barriers to access by itself will not be enough to foster research uptake.

Toward equitable open research: stakeholder co-created recommendations for research institutions, funders and researchers

“…Within this context, the disparities caused by the current system of OA publishing are especially troubling in their implications. Within policy-making, there is an increasing interest in relying on research outputs to shape responses to problems and an emphasis on the potential utility of Open Research to foster this [ 73 ]. The inequitable trends within OA publishing could mean that only the scholarship and viewpoints of the most privileged scientific actors have a seat at the table when work on global societal challenges is done.…”

Open abstracts and open citations: towards open science with high standards

“…La ciencia abierta denota un conjunto de prácticas e ideas asociadas, como la accesibilidad, la reproducibilidad, el intercambio (de datos) y la colaboración, pero a menudo se utiliza indistintamente con el acceso abierto y los datos abiertos. (1) Como medio para comunicar y cuantificar estos objetivos, el Center for Open Science en los Estados Unidos de América, estableció las directrices de Transparencia y Promoción Abierta. Estas directrices especifican ocho estándares modulares, cada uno con tres niveles de rigor creciente:…”

Artigo de reflexão | Publicações científicas: Conhecimento como mercado ou como bem comum?

“…It is therefore a means capable of articulating and energizing science, technology, and innovation policies. Collaboration and contribution are a fundamental part of the open science concept, which also allows the generation of multidisciplinary dialogues to integrate the different actors in the research process (20). This movement aims to make science more accessible, efficient, transparent, and beneficial for everyone.…”