The open science (OS) movement is growing, with increasing policies, guidelines, tools and infrastructures being developed to support researchers who engage in OS practices. However, there is no widely accepted single definition of OS. Different initiatives and countries employ a variety of characterizations. To chart how OS is understood in different parts of the world, we conducted a scoping review and critical discourse analysis of OS guidance documents aimed at researchers. Our search led to the inclusion of 69 national and international documents, with most originating from North America, Europe, and Latin America. Our results show that OS discourses are exaggerated, framing OS as the solution to address all scientific and societal problems. Furthermore, they provide often conflicting ideas about what OS can achieve. Many guidance documents frame OS as a tool to promote economic growth and efficiency. Others see OS as necessary to safeguard research quality and reproducibility through transparency. In contrast, few documents address knowledge equity and inclusion. Taking this into account, we see dominant OS discourses reproducing knowledge equity problems already present in research, rather than tackling them. We urge researchers be more precise about the specific approach they take to OS and more humble about the effects it can have – both positive, and negative.
López et al. (Tue,) studied this question.