Overview of the Study

Cole et al. (2024) set out to map and synthesize the evidence regarding the societal impact of OS initiatives. Employing the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews methodology, the study identifies and categorizes evidence across several OS practices—including Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software, and, most prominently, Citizen Science (CS). The authors distinguish between different dimensions of societal impact (e.g., education and awareness, climate/environment, policy/governance, social engagement, equity, and health) and reveal that most of the extant evidence pertains to CS initiatives. Although the review highlights positive impacts in areas such as learning, environmental awareness, and community engagement, it also points out gaps (e.g., limited evidence on the societal effects of OFD and open methods) and methodological challenges in establishing causality.

Thanks for reading The Substack Newsletter for the Open Access Blogs! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Culturally, the review underscores the transformative potential of OS to democratize knowledge and reshape academic norms. By making research outputs freely available and fostering public participation—as exemplified by CS—OS practices help break down traditional hierarchies in knowledge production and dissemination (Cole et al., 2024). This democratization contributes to an “open culture” in which diverse societal groups can access, reinterpret, and repurpose scientific knowledge. Such cultural shifts resonate with earlier work that argues for the importance of openness in promoting a more inclusive and participatory scientific enterprise (Fecher & Friesike, 2014; UNESCO, 2017).

Although Cole et al. (2024) primarily focus on societal rather than direct economic impacts, their findings carry several indirect economic implications. For instance, improved education and awareness through CS can enhance human capital, potentially leading to more innovative practices and a more competitive workforce. Moreover, the enhanced transparency and efficiency associated with OS might lower barriers to entry for new research initiatives, reduce redundant efforts, and ultimately generate cost savings across research ecosystems (Tennant et al., 2019). While the review separates economic impact from broader societal outcomes, the linkage between open practices and economic benefits is an area ripe for future investigation.

In term of policy implications, the review provides evidence that OS practices—especially those related to citizen science—can influence policy and governance. Cole et al. (2024) report that CS initiatives have informed local and regional environmental monitoring and resource management, sometimes even contributing to policy changes or the development of new regulatory frameworks. This finding aligns with research suggesting that increased transparency and public engagement fostered by OS can enhance the legitimacy of policy decisions and promote evidence-based governance (Bornmann, 2013). However, the authors also note that the political impact is more pronounced at local levels, indicating potential challenges in scaling such effects to national or international policy arenas.

Socially, the review highlights that OS practices yield considerable benefits in terms of education, social engagement, and community empowerment. The evidence points to substantial positive impacts on participants’ scientific literacy, awareness of environmental issues, and even shifts in attitudes toward science and technology (Cole et al., 2024). In addition, the review documents how OS initiatives can foster social capital by creating networks among citizens, researchers, and policy-makers—a finding that supports earlier studies linking participatory research with enhanced community resilience and empowerment (Tennant et al., 2019). Nevertheless, some studies in the review report mixed or negligible effects, underscoring the complexity of measuring and realizing social impact in diverse contexts.

A notable strength of Cole et al. (2024) is their rigorous methodological approach, which enhances the reliability and replicability of their findings. By employing a systematic scoping review method and transparently reporting inclusion criteria, the authors provide a robust framework for future research. Nonetheless, the review also highlights several gaps. The limited evidence for the societal impact of certain OS practices—such as Open/FAIR Data and open methods—suggests that more targeted research is needed. Moreover, while the review captures a wide range of impacts, the heterogeneity of methods and outcomes across studies makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions about causality.

Future studies might address these gaps by employing mixed-methods research designs that combine quantitative impact assessments with qualitative insights into stakeholder experiences. Such approaches could better capture the nuanced ways in which OS reshapes cultural norms, economic practices, political decision-making, and social interactions.

Cole et al.’s (2024) scoping review offers a timely and comprehensive synthesis of the societal impacts of OS, elucidating its cultural, economic, political, and social dimensions. The study not only reinforces the transformative potential of OS in democratizing research and enhancing public engagement but also calls attention to critical gaps in the current evidence base. By situating their findings within the broader literature on open science and societal impact, the authors provide valuable insights for scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers striving to harness the full potential of open practices in research.

Bornmann, L. (2013). What does research impact mean? A literature review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(4), 331–343.

Cole, N. L., Kormann, E., Klebel, T., Apartis, S., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2024). The societal impact of Open Science: A scoping review. Royal Society Open Science, 11, 240286. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240286

Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science (pp. 17–47). Springer.

Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2019). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review. F1000Research, 8, 1444. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19702.1

UNESCO. (2017). Recommendation on Open Science. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247661

[Edited by Pablo Markin. The initial draft has been generated using ChatGPT, OpenAI (February 28, 2025).]

[Support the Open Access Blog: https://ko-fi.com/theopenaccessblogs]

Thanks for reading The Substack Newsletter for the Open Access Blogs! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Support dialog