Universal Mandates vs. Contextual Realities: A Scoping Review of Ethical Tensions and Power Asymmetries in Global Open Science

The global diffusion of open science is widely promoted as a pathway to transparency and the democratisation of knowledge production. However, growing evidence shows that universal openness mandates often conflict with diverse cultural, institutional, and socio-economic contexts, generating ethical tensions and reinforcing existing power asymmetries. This scoping review maps the ethical, governance, and equity implications of open science across heterogeneous research environments. Guided by PRISMA-ScR protocols and preregistered with the Open Science Framework, the review analysed 33 appraised studies published in multidisciplinary databases and grey literature. A three-dimensional analytical framework was developed comprising the Ethical Tension Index (ETI), Governance Maturity Level (GML), and Implementation Equity Score (IES). Findings indicate that ethical conflicts are systemic, arising where transparency norms intersect with collective ownership traditions, Indigenous data sovereignty, and resource disparities. Article processing charges, infrastructural gaps, and commercial platform control were major drivers of epistemic exclusion, particularly for Global South institutions. Most initiatives remain in the early governance maturity stages, characterised by compliance-driven policies with limited stakeholder participation. In contrast, equity-oriented models demonstrate higher governance maturity and improved equity outcomes. The study concludes that responsible global open science requires a shift from universalist mandates to pluralistic, context-sensitive governance frameworks that prioritise community authority.