Unlocking Discovery: Why Open Science Needs Disruptors to Thrive

Redacción HC
16/12/2023

The traditional model of sharing and consuming scientific research is outdated, plagued by barriers that hinder progress. Closed publishing models, prohibitive access costs, and archaic academic funding, reward, and recognition systems severely limit the dissemination of knowledge. This slows down scientific advancement and excludes a vast segment of the global research community and the public. Despite technological leaps that enable instant information distribution, the scientific system often remains anchored in practices belonging to the era of physical publications. This leads to issues of reproducibility, fosters publication biases, and ultimately restricts the societal impact of scientific endeavors.

The Open Science movement aims to dismantle these barriers, envisioning a future where scientific knowledge is accessible to everyone, everywhere. However, this shift isn't merely technological; it demands a profound cultural and systemic transformation. The challenge lies in how to inspire and sustain the necessary disruption to move from an opaque, restrictive system to one that is transparent, inclusive, and efficient. The underlying question is how to catalyze the behavioral changes and mindset shifts required within academia and the broader scientific community to fully embrace the principles of open science.

This blog post, authored by PLOS (Public Library of Science), a leading non-profit publisher and advocate for open science, explores this critical juncture. It asks: How can the transition to truly open science be accelerated, overcoming existing systemic and cultural barriers, and what is the role of individuals and organizations willing to challenge the status quo to achieve this advancement?

Driving Change: PLOS's Role as a Pioneer and Advocate

As an opinion and reflection piece from an organization, this blog doesn't adhere to a formal research methodology like an experimental study or a traditional systematic review. Instead, its "methodology" is rooted in institutional experience, observations of the scientific publishing landscape, and the advocacy of core principles.

Key elements that structure the blog's argument include:

• PLOS's Pioneering Experience: The blog draws heavily on PLOS's history as a non-profit organization that has spearheaded open access publishing. Its own journey of demonstrating the viability of open access serves as compelling evidence that disruption is not only possible but also effective.
• Implementation of Policies and Standards: PLOS has been proactive in introducing open science requirements, notably making data sharing mandatory since 2014. This practical experience allows them to assess the successes and challenges of normalizing new practices. The "methodology" here is that of an organization enacting changes and observing their effects on the research ecosystem.
• Strategic Collaborations: The blog highlights PLOS's partnerships with preprint servers and the development of peer-reviewed "Lab Protocols." This demonstrates a pragmatic approach to addressing barriers to reproducibility and the early dissemination of knowledge, actively collaborating with other actors in the open science ecosystem.
• Analysis of Cultural Change: The publication addresses the concept of cultural change within science, discussing "models for understanding and accelerating cultural change." While it doesn't detail a specific data analysis methodology for this, it reflects on the psychology of adopting new practices within a professional community.

Among the limitations of this blog's "methodology" are its non-empirical nature and its focus on the perspective of a single organization (PLOS). While PLOS's experience is undeniably valuable, the blog does not present quantitative data or statistical analyses on the global adoption of open science practices or the specific impacts of its initiatives. There isn't a formal "research question" answered with systematically collected or analyzed data; rather, it presents a thesis defended through experience and argumentation. Nevertheless, its value lies in offering an informed perspective and a powerful call to action from a leading organization in the field.

The Path to Openness: Key Insights from PLOS

The blog, rather than presenting research findings, articulates key conclusions and perspectives that PLOS has drawn from its journey and its vision for Open Science.

The main "conclusions" or core points are:

• The Viability and Necessity of Open Science: PLOS has proven that the Open Access model is viable and fundamental for a future where science is "open for everyone." This necessitates a fundamental rethinking of how research is shared, consumed, and valued.
• Success in Normalizing Data Sharing: PLOS's introduction of a data sharing requirement in 2014 has been a significant success, helping to normalize this crucial practice for reproducibility and transparency. This serves as a concrete example of how a strong policy can drive behavioral change.
• Addressing Reproducibility Barriers: Through alliances with preprint platforms and the development of peer-reviewed "Lab Protocols," PLOS is actively working to eliminate obstacles to research reproducibility, a cornerstone of good science.
• The Importance of the "Disruptor" and Cultural Change: The central message is that Open Science doesn't advance on its own. It requires individuals and organizations willing to "disrupt the system," to challenge established norms and push for behavioral shifts. It's recognized that true progress in open science fundamentally depends on a cultural change in how researchers operate and are rewarded.
• Archaic Systems as Barriers: The blog identifies that current academic funding, reward, and recognition systems are "archaic" and act as barriers to the advancement of open science, as they favor traditional practices at the expense of openness.

The theoretical or conceptual implications of these findings revolve around the sociology of science and innovation. The blog emphasizes that science is not merely a set of methods but also a social system with its own norms, incentives, and power structures. Resistance to change, even towards more efficient and ethical models, is inherent in any social system. Conceptually, the blog suggests that "innovation" in open science is not just technological (new platforms) but fundamentally institutional and behavioral. The notion of "disruption" as a driver of progress is key, challenging the idea of linear, gradual evolution.

In comparison with previous discussions on open science, this blog focuses less on the technical or economic aspects of openness and more on the human and cultural elements. While many debates center on open access to publications or data, this blog highlights the need to transform mindsets and reward systems for open science to truly take root. Having pioneered open access, PLOS can now reflect on the deeper challenges of systemic change.

Actionable Insights: Paving the Way for a Transparent Scientific Future

The points raised in this blog have direct practical relevance for all stakeholders involved in the scientific ecosystem: researchers, academic institutions, funders, publishers, and policymakers.

Regarding applications in public and academic policies:

1. Review of Academic Evaluation Systems: Universities and funding bodies must rethink how they evaluate and reward researchers. If promotion and funding systems continue to value only publications in high-impact (often closed-access) journals, Open Science will not advance. Policies must explicitly recognize and reward open science practices (e.g., preprints, data sharing, open-source software) in merit evaluations.
2. Incentives for Data and Output Sharing: Funders should mandate and provide support for research data to be FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). PLOS's experience demonstrates that an open data policy is viable and effective.
3. Support for Open Science Infrastructure: Governments and institutions must invest in and sustain open infrastructure (data repositories, preprint servers, open peer review platforms) that are essential for the open science ecosystem.

The implications for society are fundamental. More open and accessible science directly benefits the general public:

1. Increased Transparency and Trust in Science: By sharing data and processes, science becomes more transparent, which can significantly increase public trust in scientific findings.
2. Acceleration of Scientific Progress: Openness facilitates collaboration, avoids duplication of effort, and allows new discoveries to build more rapidly on existing work, thereby accelerating innovation.
3. Greater Research Impact: Making research more accessible allows for its wider use by innovators, policymakers, educators, and the general public, amplifying the impact of investment in science.
4. Inclusion in Knowledge Creation: Removing barriers allows more voices and perspectives from around the world to contribute to research, fostering a more diverse and equitable scientific landscape.

While the blog doesn't present formal "author recommendations" in the sense of a research article, its points strongly imply: 1) A call to action for "disruption" within the scientific system, recognizing that real change comes from those willing to challenge the status quo. 2) The necessity of fostering a cultural shift so that open science practices become the norm, not the exception. 3) The continued commitment of PLOS and other like-minded organizations in building a more robust and inclusive open science ecosystem.

Topics of interest

Open Access