The impact of COVID-19 on the debate on open science: a qualitative analysis of published materials from the period of the pandemic

Melanie Benson Marshall (), Stephen Pinfield (), Pamela Abbott, Andrew Cox, Juan Pablo Alperin, Germana Fernandes Barata, Natascha Chtena, Isabelle Dorsch, Alice Fleerackers, Monique Oliveira and Isabella Peters
Additional contact information
Melanie Benson Marshall: University of Sheffield
Stephen Pinfield: University of Sheffield
Pamela Abbott: University of Sheffield
Andrew Cox: University of Sheffield
Juan Pablo Alperin: Simon Fraser University
Germana Fernandes Barata: Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp)
Natascha Chtena: Simon Fraser University
Isabelle Dorsch: ZBW—Leibniz Information Center for Economics
Alice Fleerackers: Simon Fraser University
Monique Oliveira: Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp)
Isabella Peters: ZBW—Leibniz Information Center for Economics & Kiel University

Palgrave Communications, 2024, vol. 11, issue 1, 1-14

Abstract: Abstract This study is an analysis of the international debate on open science that took place during the pandemic. It addresses the question, how did the COVID-19 pandemic impact the debate on open science? The study takes the form of a qualitative analysis of a large corpus of key articles, editorials, blogs and thought pieces about the impact of COVID on open science, published during the pandemic in English, German, Portuguese, and Spanish. The findings show that many authors believed that it was clear that the experience of the pandemic had illustrated or strengthened the case for open science, with language such as a “stress test”, “catalyst”, “revolution” or “tipping point” frequently used. It was commonly believed that open science had played a positive role in the response to the pandemic, creating a clear ‘line of sight’ between open science and societal benefits. Whilst the arguments about open science deployed in the debate were not substantially new, the focuses of debate changed in some key respects. There was much less attention given to business models for open access and critical perspectives on open science, but open data sharing, preprinting, information quality and misinformation became most prominent in debates. There were also moves to reframe open science conceptually, particularly in connecting science with society and addressing broader questions of equity.

Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-03804-w Abstract (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03804-w

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/palcomms/about

DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03804-w

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Palgrave Communications from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().