Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Open science aims to improve research transparency, reuse and societal impact, yet its adoption and reach ultimately depend on people. Understanding how personal characteristics such as gender, work experience or professional role influence familiarity with, attitudes toward and engagement in open science is critical for the effective, widespread implementation of open science practices. We surveyed 342 individuals who produce, mobilise or use scientific knowledge in ecology and evolutionary biology. Their engagement was analysed using the open science change framework, which conceptualises open science as a progression from familiarity and perceptions to practices and support for societal goals, as outlined in the UNESCO Recommendations. Familiarity with open science emerged as a strongest and most consistent predictor of engagement: higher familiarity was associated with more positive attitudes, greater participation in open science practices and stronger agreement with UNESCO principles. Although these relationships are correlational and likely bidirectional, they highlight the central role of familiarity in open science engagement. Years of professional experience were associated with slightly less positive perceptions of open science, particularly among knowledge creators, while gender effects were weak across all stages of engagement. Stakeholder groups differed most in their familiarity with open science, while attitudes and support for broader goals were more similar once familiarity was considered. Together, these findings suggest that increasing familiarity with open science may be more effective than managing resistance or targeting specific demographic groups. Aligning incentives and practical support to increase familiarity offers actionable opportunities to strengthen open science engagement across the research ecosystem in ecology and evolutionary biology and enhance its societal impact.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zagrodzka et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: