Transparency in Open Science: An Actionable Principle?

1 Introduction

Open access (OA) to research data and outputs has turned into an official and unofficial mandate in academic practice. Calls for more and higher quality research materials are at the forefront of scholarly declarations seeking a more inclusive and comprehensive science system.^[1] These calls and initiatives are underpinned by a series of principles and values that further emphasise the need for opening up the scientific practices of preparing, producing, and transferring research. One of the key principles is transparency. Transparency defines most policy and declarative approaches for greater access and academic accountability, yet the concept is rarely defined or operatively characterised. It serves a discursive purpose and its rhetoric meaning can be applied everywhere. The open science (OS) paradigm depends on greater transparency across all stages of research; access is also determined by the extent of transparent processes and data available.

In this regard, it is then relevant to understand how transparency is framed within regulations, guidelines, and policies, particularly since it brings together a broader spectrum of research practices relating to OS. For instance, the UNESCO Open Science Outlook (2023) presents an outline for understanding the movement revolving around OS and scientific development. It calls, amongst other things, to deepen the calls and efforts for a “streamlined creation and reproducibility of scientific findings [that can] positively influence the investments in and outputs from science” (p. 10). Moreover, it highlights the need to make advancements in matters of technical and political infrastructures facilitating the adoption of open paradigms. These paradigms range from access to research data to access to innovative processes (whether theory-driven knowledge and conceptual frameworks or applied technical implementations).

Similarly, on the promotion of transparent research approaches, as well as transparent dissemination of research outputs, UNESCO argues that “[t]he transparency and collaboration that characterise OS are redefining conventional research practices, potentially sparking an era of inclusive and participatory science” (2023, p. 13). Further, in the organisation’s Introduction to the Recommendation on Open Science, it makes clear that transparency and collaboration are two of the driving principles, leading “ultimately to better science [and] more trust in science” (UNESCO & Canadian National Commission for UNESCO, 2022, p. 6). In this sense, UNESCO makes an avid call on researchers and public administrations alike to share their data, methods, and outputs in order to facilitate the accountability of these elements, whether by scientific or political means.

The overall scope of UNESCO’s calls for OS revolves around a series of principles that underline the provision of access to research in all of its phases. Access to research data lies at the core of these appeals; both quantitative primary data and qualitative data-collection protocols are required to be openly structured and shared. The availability and accessibility are then conditions for transparent research practices. In addition, other principles called upon are “scrutiny, reproducibility, equality of opportunity, collaboration, flexibility and sustainability” (2022, p. 3). The goal of these factors is to lead the scientific community to a cultural shift that enables the idea of science “as open as possible” (p. 5). The expectation in this sense is that, through OS, transparent practices can cause deeper changes in research environments and transform them into transparent structures. This expectation is then transversal to disciplinary and epistemological arenas (Steltenpohl et al., 2023), whereas dependent on the specificities of nuances and material limitations.

Questions of the repercussions of transparent structures (both processes and practices – a transparent research ontology) arise when considering the full extent of transparent approaches to sensitive data, for instance, relating to commercially relevant industries or, more pressingly, the biomedical and pharmaceutical fields (Besançon et al., 2021; Beugelsdijk, van Witteloostuijn, & Meyer, 2020; Guzzo, Schneider, & Nalbantian, 2022; Levy & Johns, 2016). Further ethical considerations about the interplay of OA and general transparent research ontologies stem from the legal perspective (Aleman, 2018). These thoughts directly link OS with the open innovation landscape, in that novel processes and outputs become protected under specific rights and licensing, sometimes undercutting the principles of OS. A further layer fuelling the debate concerning open innovation relates then to the use and reuse schemes stemming from the sources of funding. Governing bodies and funding agencies have made a recent but significant turn towards demanding publicly funded research to follow transparent and open formats and protocols, including freely sharing their data and methods.^[2] Again, there is still a grey zone regarding the role of patents and other innovations stemming from these research projects; the UNESCO experts’ meeting on the role of OS acknowledged that “without reconciliation of normative and legal structures, OS will rely on voluntary practices only” (UNESCO, 2021, p. 4).

Hence, the question this review poses the question: What is meant by transparency in the context of OS? Moreover, what is transparency’s relation to open innovation in the context of scientific practice? Through a literature review and subsequent thematic analysis of official documentation in international and supranational levels, as well as in more specific policy and scholarly documents, this review seeks to answer these questions, whilst characterising OS and underlining the features of transparent research ontologies. This approach is based on the cross-cutting role of transparency as a basic principle for openness and, however, on transparency’s ambiguous and imprecise definition regarding the larger OS paradigm. The review discusses a specific framing of transparency to accompany and better understand its guiding role in the OS and open innovation systems. The scope of the literature analysed then fits within this scope and guides the main arguments through the selected documents. These documents were selected given the relevance attached to them in relation to their policy influence and overall position within the body of work. The example of open peer review (OPR) is presented as a paradigmatic case of transparent research practices with great transformative potential.

The text is structured as follows: a first section introduces the discussion around transparency and its neighbouring topics, to then frame the analytical features to be dealt with in the review. This is presented from a given framework that encompasses information and accountability as determining factors, thus delineating the thematic discussion along the literature reviewed. A second section then takes this input and presents it from a perspective that characterises the main features of OS, offering a general characterisation of its main traits in relation to transparency. The next section introduces a discussion on OA as one of the more tangible, yet elusive, elements of an open (and transparent) research ontology. A sub-section explores the example of OPR as a paradigmatic case. Finally, a closing section summarises the main elements reviewed and discusses policy and scholarly outlooks.

2 Characterising Transparency

As noted in the introduction, transparency carries a prominently discursive weight “not only in business settings, but also in government and the social sector as well” (Baltzersen, 2010, p. 792). This type of ubiquity in the parlance of policy-makers and stakeholders makes transparency a chimera of administrative action. This indefinite meaning – by design or by chance – is what Pozen calls “the ambiguity of transparency as a practical ideal” (Pozen, 2020, p. 327), as it bypasses the complexities and operational demands of actual administrative tasks (cfr. Fenster, 2015). Moreover, critique of the concept has signalled and underlined how it has been decoupled from substantive meaning by ways of “thickening” its significance or, as Alloa puts it, focusing on its “magic” (2018) – i.e., its universal and empty relatedness to such other concepts as trust, responsibility, or accountability.

From this perspective, several approximations of transparency’s determinants and dimensions have been offered, from diverse perspectives. For instance, in its entendre as a form or container for information, Islam argues that transparency then becomes a “critical ingredient in efficient, well-functioning markets, both economic and political” (2006, p. 121). However, this take entangles asymmetric and dissimilar contexts, further complicating transparency’s empirical meaning. Cucciniello, Porumbescu, and Grimmelikhuijsen, on the other side, offer a rather wide definition meant to characterise “the extent external actors are afforded access to information about the way public organizations operate” (2017, p. 5). Again, the common thread is intertwined with information availability, which is what both Mayernik (2017) and Stasavage (2003) highlight. The latter narrows down the approach and sets the focus on “public release by bureaucrats of information that they use to make decisions” (Stasavage, 2003, p. 389). Yet, as it will be further problematised, information on its own enables accessibility conditions but limits the actions of what is possible with the open information.

Further, from the positions sketched above, there are a number of dimensions that can be incorporated into a more comprehensive transparency discussion – precisely so in the direction of actionable principles. Scholars have pointed out the intrinsic relation of transparency with accountability, for example, and have underscored its intervening nature (e.g., Bovens, 2010; Fox, 2007; Heald, 2006). Others have more precisely pointed out the dual nature of both concepts, even highlighting the metaphorical “one-handed clap” that reflects a transparency discourse without effective accounting mechanisms (Seligsohn, Liu, & Zhang, 2018; further, see Erkkilä, 2012). For the analytical purposes of this review, the “functional definition” of transparency will be taken as a point of reference (Cruz Romero, 2023, pp. 8–9). Figure 1 shows a summary structure of the analytical approach contained in this conceptual perspective and its relation to the elements of OS, highlighting the pertinence in this regard.

Figure 1

Functional transparency feedback in an OS system. Note: Adapted from Cruz Romero (2023, p. 11).

From this perspective, transparency is taken as a function of the sub-dimensions of information and accountability. In this sense, the functional approach is based on the underlying linkage of information and accountability that results in a framework of “transparency jointly dependent on the information and accounting factors given by the specific institutional arrangements and policies” (Cruz Romero, 2023, p. 10). Hence, as Figure 1 illustrates, transparency is a mediator between system inputs and outputs, enacting accountability mechanisms from the available information in each systemic process. Seen otherwise, transparency becomes an action mechanism (rather than just a principle) and activates the systemic exchange between inputs and outputs. This dynamic creates a feedback loop that functions on three levels qua processes, namely: 1) an ordinal process – the system produces outputs, which are then transformed by practices of academic endeavour into further inputs; 2) a mediation process – transparency policies or frameworks create the links between assessment and production practices that determine both outputs and inputs; and, 3) a dependence mechanism – transparency determines the validity of outputs and inputs, in that the system establishes practices and standards of transparent scientific work, which are again co-determined by the access to information (e.g., OA) about them and the mechanisms to challenge them (e.g., OPR, as well as further publication and presentation formats). In this regard, Bertram et al. (2023, p. R793) argue that an open “research lifecycle” is an aggregation of different scientific practices, during different stages, that amount to a time investment balance. These practices (within the different stages) amount to a characterisation of the three levels (processes) just described.

The functional approach also underlines the role of intersecting information and accountability dynamics. As it will be discussed below, in transparent research ontologies the interlocking dynamic between information and accountability is given by a number of specific practices. However, one of the most notable within the OS paradigm is data sharing; not only the act alone of making something available (as a dataset, for instance), but also the effective premise of making the resources actionable. A key component in this regard is the reproducibility (or replicability) of research outputs – which then also contribute to the shaping of inputs. For instance, through the consolidation of open data and OA practices, lowering the hurdles needed to access and validate science, increasing the overall quality (through rigorous methodological assessment), and generating a more inclusive landscape.

So, it follows, this systemic (functional) approach is meant to reflect the goal of reinforcing “the rigor of scientific results, [enhancing] the positive impact of science on society and [increasing] society’s ability to solve complex interconnected problems” (UNESCO & Canadian National Commission for UNESCO, 2022, p. 9). Thus, this framework is meant to be a guiding thread for the discussion on OS and, as introduced, its impact on access and specific practices of scholarly work (i.e., OA and OPR). Said outlook condenses the necessary elements with which to also analyse the elements of OS particularly and integrally. This review is centred on the practices of OS that relate directly to the elements that determine, in the first instance, the knowledge production; namely, access to publications, access to data, access to educational resources, access to software and source codes, and access to hardware (UNESCO, 2023, p. 17). Thus, with the examples of OA and OPR, the information-accountability function will serve as an illustration of the value of actionable transparency in this set of scientific practices.

3 Characterising Open Science

The overarching framework that normatively guides the OA research practices is the OS paradigm. The OS paradigm represents a systematic approach to openness and transparency within scientific and academic endeavours, aiming to “to broaden the scope and freedom of use of research results, by facilitating the transfer of information, reducing its costs and, ultimately, preventing exclusion” (Rentier, 2019, p. 30). In this sense, OS also incorporates elements of equity and inclusion, both high-level principles recognised by the UN institutions, primarily UNESCO. Similarly, the European Commission (EC) – the executive branch of the European Union’s (EU) political-administrative arrangement – recognises these elements in their approach to OS promotion. More specifically, the EC enacts these principles through its European Research Executive Agency (REA),^[3] which is the entity in charge of funding and managing the EU programmes (e.g., Horizon Europe).

The REA defines OS as the “approach to research based on open cooperative work that emphasises the sharing of knowledge, results, and tools as early and widely as possible” (European Commission, n.d.-a). Similar to this, it has been widely argued and recognised that the underlying objective of OS is to do away with the material and structural barriers to knowledge and its dissemination. In the same line, as mentioned previously, UNESCO’s approach to OS is based on the premise that “scientific knowledge is accessible [and] that the production of that knowledge itself is inclusive, equitable and sustainable” (UNESCO & Canadian National Commission for UNESCO, 2022, p. 2). One of the relevant factors in this approach is the notion of sustainable OS. As introduced, UNESCO, and also the EC (through all its institutional offshoots), recognise the limits of normative policy statements regarding openness; this recognition is then enshrined in the conditional support for science to be as open as possible, but to remain “as closed as necessary” (European Commission, n.d.-a). This distinction is meant as a safeguard for intellectual property (IP) rights, confidential data, or even indigenous knowledge; yet, it also compounds the equity dimension of OS that “implicitly shape the experience and prioritization of OS practices” (UNESCO, 2023, p. 10). This premise highlights the need for information availability and for the appropriate mechanisms to act upon the available information.

The challenges faced by the OS movement are often addressed from the perspective of access, but without correctly contextualising the dimensions that determine the access itself. As Dacos (2016) argues, OA is not free access and so, it follows, OS is not free science. This is not a new idea, but the underlying condition remains relevant, in that there are a variety of determinants that characterise the stages between “‘no disclosure’ and ‘full transparency’” (Beugelsdijk et al., 2020, p. 888). This is not to simply equate access to transparency since, as it was shown, access is but a dimension of transparent systems – in this case, dynamic science systems that are constantly self-correcting, growing, and changing according to the events and findings within. Thus, according to the diagram and transparency framework introduced previously, this feedback mechanism implies certain conditionality on opaque characteristics of knowledge production, such as materials, resources, data, and codes. These types of (incompletely transparent) inputs lead to (incompletely transparent) outputs that, according to specific disciplinary affordances, replicate or dynamise the influence paths of transparency policies.

The UNESCO Meeting on OS and IP Rights (2021) likewise recognises the deficitary attention to material conditionality, stressing that “ensuring that the global south has access to technical data and encourage a transitional innovation system” (p. 4) becomes a priority, amongst others, for private funders. From the perspective of the public sector and education institutions, the experts also recognise the value of “licenses agreements with conditions for accessibility to scientific outputs for low-income countries” (p. 5). In this sense, each step of the “greater research transparency” model (Gernsbacher, 2018) is filled with potential pitfalls hindering the appropriation of OS practices by scholars and institutions in lower-income regions. For instance, research evaluation practices also overshadow the (often additional) tasks of pre-registering studies, making the data available in open formats alongside explanatory documentation and finally searching for additional funding to pay for the OA processing charges.

In general, OS faces various limitations regarding the material conditions that enable the uptake of collaborative and inclusive research practices. These limitations then negatively affect the channels and mechanisms of transparent actions (Figure 1). Furthermore, disciplinary specificities may also play a determining role in the way OS practices are adopted, or not. This is particularly relevant in fields where intensive collaborative work is carried out and in direct contrast to those fields where individual research practices are the norm (e.g., the biomedical sciences vis-a-vis the humanities). These specificities usually co-determine the role that open academic practices have, and how they become enshrined in each scientific methodology; for instance, OPR, pre-printing, and the sharing of open datasets. Moreover, these elements are parallel to the role that publication types play in advancing the diverse discourses, i.e., either article-based or monograph-oriented outputs. Subsequently, the access and licensing details gain or lose relevance in this perspective, as they represent the ways in which the particular scientific communities exchange and communicate. In some cases, OA is regarded negatively at the expense of openness and outreach. Again, these open practices offer an exemplary reflection of the functional intertwinement of information availability (publication and data access) and accountability mechanisms (academic peer evaluation practices).

4 OA and the OS Paradigm

As previously noted, one of the key elements of the OS paradigm, and in relation to the problems discussed here, is knowledge’s access dimension, i.e., OA to scientific material (publications, data, and other resources). From this perspective, OA spearheads the OS paradigm. It is even argued that OA represents the underlying condition on which OS is based and developed (see Rentier, 2019). As noted, OS represents the overarching framework that gives a broad perspective to general openness campaigns in academia. Yet, it is the demand for access to research data that drives the pushes for institutional backing and systemic solutions to persistent unequal access opportunities. This follows the functional path shown previously, in that access provides tools to better contextualise and (re-)frame (i.e., hold to account) scientific knowledge. High-level policy institutions, as well as research assessment and promotion mechanisms, recognise OA as the central component to the transformation of research paradigms and the adoption of a transparent research ontology. Access, therefore, relates to a whole host of dimensions closely knit to the OS paradigm.

In relation to the conceptual precision of OA in relation to access as a dimension of transparency, there are linguistic nuances that are relevant to address, given that, for example, the French understanding of open access can be associated with either open (ouvert) or free (libre) (Rentier, 2019). As noted above, this differentiation relates to the costs imposed on research outputs (as well as the intermediate research processes to secure the openness of the outputs). Crucially, the distinction also relates to the “difference between access and possibility of re-use (for example, disclosure obligation)” (UNESCO, 2023, p. 21). Re-use, in this sense, reflects the underlying dimension of accountability for transparency. This element further emphasises the role of IP rights and the legal structures that are in place and often have broad repercussions on the ways in which researchers make their data and materials available.

The access to research outputs, data, and materials also supposes a pre-condition for one of the key principles of the OS paradigm; namely, the reproducibility of empirical settings and the verification of results. In most cases, academic outlets (journals or conference proceedings) ascertain the need to “comply or explain” (Beugelsdijk et al., 2020, p. 892) in relation to what has come to be termed “data access and research transparency” protocols (Beugelsdijk et al., 2020). Following on Gernsbacher (2018), this perspective includes the openness of research processes and outputs, which go on to constitute a model for effective transparent research. Yet, minding the implicit but determining differences in scientific epistemologies, the “assumptions that there is a shared understanding of a specific type of research (e.g., empiricism, deductive reasoning)” (Steltenpohl et al., 2023, p. 48) are also an overarching factor that drives many points of view regarding openness and transparency in science. Yet, as Leonelli (2023, pp. 19–20) poignantly notes, the elements that cut across disciplinary divides always refer to “transparency, quality, and inclusion”. In the same sense as argued here, sharing, as a form of transparentising research protocols, leads to quality (reproducible or replicable) research and, with the open nature of this scientific paradigm, the inclusion of broader segments of scholars and practitioners.

Thus, reproducibility (or therefore, replicability) also functions as a mechanism through which to enact transparent scientific frameworks. However, it is worth pointing out that “The primary differences between reproducibility and replicability are (1) whether the data used are the same or different, and (2) how the outcomes are compared” (Hicks, 2023, p. 44). This distinction, though subtle, is useful to understand why some results are not possible to reproduce, even though their methodological pipeline may have been systematically replicated.^[4] However, beyond a quantitative-qualitative cleavage, OS practices demand the transparent baseline delineated by Leonelli (2023), as well as others (Beugelsdijk et al., 2020; Gong, 2022; Thibault et al., 2023), creating a sustainable system of inclusive epistemic practices. For instance, UNESCO’s outlook on the state of OS refers to this ecosystem of open research as open scientific knowledge, and defines it as:

open access to scientific publications, research data and metadata, open educational resources, software, and source code and hardware that are available in the public domain or under copyright and licensed under an open licence that allows access, re-use, repurpose, adaptation and distribution under specific conditions, provided to all actors immediately or as quickly as possible regardless of location, nationality, race, age, gender, income, socio-economic circumstances, career stage, discipline, language, religion, disability, ethnicity or migratory status or any other grounds, and free of charge. It also refers to the possibility of opening research methodologies and evaluation processes (UNESCO, 2023, p. 34).

UNESCO’s definition of open scientific knowledge highlights the relevance of access not only materially, but regionally. The approach emphasises the existing imbalances in access infrastructures that condition scholars from so-called Global South institutions. In this sense, transparent research practices can also function as a bridge that enables and facilitates collaboration and inter-regional participation in open innovation processes. Further, the deepening of openness through shared materials can also strengthen the OA movement and potentiate the role of smaller journals, not only for transfer and communication purposes, but also to generate a more diverse academic landscape (Berger, 2021; Ma, Buggle, & O’Neill, 2023). These dynamics, taken together, can contribute to the consolidation of transparent research ontologies. OA can therefore act as a generator for greater transparency and situated accountability (see below).

Similarly, regarding situated accountability, and addressing issues of disciplinary differences in research evaluation, the coalition for advancing research assessment (CoARA) stipulates that evaluative bodies should “[v]alue methodological rigour to guard against sources of bias (…) [and] [r]ecognise the diversity of research activities and practices, with a diversity of outputs, and reward early sharing and open collaboration” (CoARA, 2022, pp. 3–4). In this sense, reproducibility can also be framed as a specific way in which transparency is enacted as an assessment criterion, disregarding the rigidity of standardisation in favour of specificity and epistemological diversity. As argued, the end goal of transparency as an actionable principle is not to generate standards, but to promote quality and inclusion, enabling scientific work to be accessible and open – “quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods researchers share the goal of advancing knowledge in the field through rigorous and transparent processes” (Steltenpohl et al., 2023, p. 50). Transparency, in this manner, can contribute to close structural gaps in access and participation, leading to a more inclusive research landscape, both disciplinary and global.

For instance, regarding the material conditions of access, the German Bibliometrics Competence Network (KB, for its German acronym) systematises data from Clarivate’s Web of Science (WoS Primary) and Elsevier’s Scopus bibliographic databases. Data from these providers support the overall claim that OA has been growing proportionally against closed access publications in the past years, with a dominating trend in several fields.^[5] Admittedly, the databases provide only a skewed perspective that, first, exaggerates the weight of so-called Global North-affiliated scholars and, second, over-represents the fields of natural and health sciences. Nonetheless, this empirical evidence serves as a reference point for an interdisciplinary transparent research ontology.

Hence, as UNESCO warns, OA is still a dimension of the academic system where disciplinarity and resource availability determine the representation at a global level. Indeed, WoS Primary and Scopus indexed outputs are based on their completeness and quality standards (specifically at the publisher and journal level), which are starkly in favour of publishing organisations that benefit from the various OA models.^[6] For instance, a contrasting picture can be shown from the Latin American context where a default approach to academic publishing has focused on the diamond OA model. This model implies no cost for readers and, relevantly, no cost for authors, whilst maintaining full rights to their work. The latter is commonly linked with a Creative Commons license that protects the IP rights associated with scholarly publications. Further, this characteristic pattern also determines the outlying trend in comparison to other regions; nearly 40% of all Latin American articles published over the last decade were published under the diamond format. As an example, during the same period, articles published by scholars affiliated in Western Europe and North America only accounted for 7.6% (UNESCO, 2023, p. 36).

Access is therefore a paramount condition to consider OS as an achievable objective. Yet, most of the OA movement is concerned, rightfully so, with the end-stage of access. That is, with published material (articles, books, or conference proceedings). Still, as noted, the preceding phases of research include myriad steps that guarantee that openness and transparency are upheld as constitutive elements of OS (inputs and outputs, as per the systematisation in Figure 1). One of those steps concerns also (self-)archiving data outputs as well as data and other research protocols. Self-archiving and pre-printing repositories function as “initiatives towards independence” (Rentier, 2019, p. 21). These digital spaces reshape the way in which licensing issues are addressed, as they function as a community-driven forum that is based on academic honesty and self-regulation. Further, it promotes transparent research practices and scientific advancement through public scrutiny of works in progress or preceding formats to the traditional finished journal article – a specific format of academic accountability.

4.2 OPR as a Driver for Transparency

Peer review constitutes one of the foundational elements of scientific practice. It determines, in most cases, the state of the art in any academic discipline. Peers, i.e., fellow researchers, function as the gatekeepers of scientific contributions, controlling for elements of novelty, soundness, rigour, and overall fit into the corresponding discourses. As it is most commonly found, peer review represents an opaque instance of accountability (soft accountability), in which the merits and flaws of scientific contributions are pondered. The task is distributed by the journal editor(s) and assumed by scholars specialised in the respective fields, setting forth a process that should, ideally, advance the quality of academic contributions in the specific outlet and the academic community in general. The process is commonly characterised by its anonymity, with different levels of disclosure in this regard.^[9] Hence, reviews should encompass a critical and objective reasoning for either accepting or rejecting a contribution.

Moreover, review processes entail the involvement of editors and fellow scholars in the development of finished research outputs. From a basic perspective, the involvement of more individuals in the research debates is already a cornerstone of the opening of science practices. Yet, as Wicherts notes, it is mostly the case that “the quality of peer review itself is often obscured by the fact that it takes places behind closed curtains” (2016, p. 2). Hence, the involvement obtained here is also made opaque by the prevailing mechanisms of most journal workflows. This is particularly relevant when considering OA as a format gaining track across disciplinary lines. As warned by some observers (in general referring to the OA movement), OA also introduces risks of peer-reviewing, such that “economic considerations like increasing revenue may take over academic considerations concerning quality” (Wicherts, 2016, p. 3). Yet, the same can be argued for paywalled or subscription-based journals.

In that regard, the practice of OPR has been introduced into the OS landscape as a further transparency-oriented mechanism, “where aspects of the peer review process, which have traditionally been hidden or anonymous, are made public” (Wolfram, Wang, Hembree, & Park, 2020, p. 1034). This intention looks to systemically highlight “ responsibility and accountability and protects all parties more equitably” (p. 1034 – emphasis is not in the original). Again, note that the underlying elements are highlighted: on the one side, responsibility, mirroring UNESCO’s aim, in that OS “can accelerate our ability to help solve the complex challenges of our interconnected world” (UNESCO & Canadian National Commission for UNESCO, 2022, p. 6). Open review processes can further push the presentation of responsible research activities, whilst highlighting the complementary scope of open materials and data, as well as open protocols on the possibility of reproducible and accessible results. On the other side, from the perspective of accountability, there is a further reflection of supra-national policy aims, in that OPR leads to “increased scrutiny and critique which in turn increases the verifiability and reproducibility of the science produced” (p. 6). Again, the implementation of OPR within the OS paradigm is emphasised as “ongoing achievements, not one-time acts.” (Mayernik, 2017, p. 3). The latter idea supports the premise presented in Figure 1, as transparency acts (as is enacted) through dynamic moments and is seldom a one-time issue.

Yet, beyond the principled call for opening up the process of reviewing, how does it actually come to effective actions? Wicherts (2016), for instance, introduced a multi-item instrument to gauge the “transparency of the review process” and how it related to OA journals. Across their settings, it was found that quality is not diminished by an OPR process; on the contrary, it follows that journals “with higher transparency ratings were less likely to accept the flawed paper” (p. 1).^[10] The same conclusion follows from Wolfram et al.’s (2020) research, in which they not only show the uptake of publishers (and their journals) with OPR processes across disciplines but, more importantly, the many accounts of OPR beneficial impact on publishing workflows. From the various examples the authors mention, it is worth summarising two key elements: a) there is no evident apprehension for OPR, whether with complete transparency and non-anonymous commenting, or by making reports publicly available after publication; and b) quality – a contentious dimension for OA and OS sceptics – remains unchanged, with even a perception of increased precision and depth.

Paradigmatically, Pöschl (2010) presented the case of the then-called “interactive OA publishing and peer review”. This framework is precisely conceptualised within the OA landscape, promoting the role of independent scholarly publishers and learned societies (as editorial entities), emphasising the role of openness throughout the entire publishing workflow – from submission to digital or print publication. The system was introduced in a handful of journals and has grown to be effectively used by various publishers across fields of study. It involves opening up the editorial process after an article’s submission; handling editors make a copy of the manuscript public and create with it a public forum for comments from both the reviewers and the scientific community (or interested public). According to Pöschl, the main advantage of this implementation is that it “effectively resolves the dilemma between rapid scientific exchange and thorough quality assurance, and it offers a win-win situation for all involved parties (authors, referees, editors, publishers, readers/scientific community)” (2010, p. 296). It does so by creating an accessible, traceable, and citable corpus of the review documents – all characteristics (and therein also dimensions) of the functional framing of transparency.

Notwithstanding, there are elements that may hinder full transparency in the review process (as well as in the general stages of the research process). Linking Figure 1’s systemic perspective to Table 1’s matrix ordering, material, and personal conditions may act as gatekeepers of transparent practices. For instance, circumventing specific panels or evaluative instances due to unrecognised (unresolved) power differentials create unfair (dis-)advantages for some. Likewise, potential conflicts of interest in allocating funding, assessing research projects or outcomes, or even in hiring processes. These are all potential pitfalls of current research practices that have not been sufficiently problematised in relation to their prevalence in OS contexts. Of course, the existing evidence, as seen from the OPR, and from the guiding frameworks still being driven forward, transparency has a mediating effect regarding randomness and triviality in such cases. As noted, transparency leads to rigour and quality, and subsequently to inclusion. Thus, it is relevant to identify potential areas where outlying asymmetries in each of these dimensions (too opaque, too methodologically lax, or too elitist/exclusionary) could effectively lead to unrecognised and omitted conflicts.

Table 1

Transparent research ontology matrix

Furthermore, Table 1 presents a synthetic systematisation of the framework of transparency within OA and OPR, i.e., the backbone of transparent research ontologies. The matrix lays the two variables discussed thus far (information and accountability) that make up the functional understanding of transparency (Cruz Romero, 2023). Likewise, the matrix incorporates Mayernik’s (2017) take on accountability typology, ranging from none to hard. Hence, following the contributions introduced above, the matrix shows a diagonal line leading from non-transparency to full transparency in the consolidation of research ontologies. The former occurs when access is closed and accountability mechanisms are few or non-existent. The latter takes place when access is open and strict standards and protocols for accountability are in place (as it has been argued, OPR represents one of these mechanisms). Respectively, it is noted that these quadrants relate to opposite ends of two spectrums; namely, exclusion-inclusion and elitism-diversity. The more open and accountable research processes and practices are (more transparent), then the more inclusion and diversity they allow. On the contrary, closed and non-accountable practices and processes (non-transparent) lead to exclusion and elitism. For instance, exclusion and elitism are also reflections of high publication costs in some specific discipline-relevant journals (Butler, Matthias, Simard, Mongeon, & Haustein, 2023; cfr. Pieper & Broschinski, 2018), where structural conditions – such as the mentioned global divide regarding OA publishing patterns – are intertwined with various levels of transparent processes.

The inverse diagonal (in mid-grey) highlights scenarios that occur commonly, where stringent review processes are carried out, yet without access to any data regarding these (and the output data – publication – remains closed); or, where a complete lack of accountability mechanisms are coupled with OA (to final publications only). The latter can be more directly identified in so-called predatory journals (Fernández-Llimos, 2014; Krawczyk & Kulczycki, 2021). Further, these sections of the matrix are named status quo since they reflect current practices that do not seek to expand the transparent research ontologies they represent. The middle quadrants in each axis are understood as semi-transparent stages, in which one dimension of transparency is favoured to the detriment of the others and in which a transformative potential that could lead to “[m]ore open, transparent, collaborative and inclusive scientific practices, coupled with more accessible and verifiable scientific knowledge subject to scrutiny and critique” (UNESCO, 2023, p. 19).

Of course, as mentioned throughout, these categories are indicative and flexible; no single epistemological paradigm is per se closed, just as any research ontology is diversely composed of a mixture of open and closed practices. This dynamic is further differentiated by disciplinary frameworks (or even field-specific practices or regionally determined clusters). As noted, some of these practices are determined structurally, or materially, due to limited availability of resources (e.g., lack of laboratories, testing equipment, computational servers, or adequate rooms). Some of the limitations are given by a mixture of the abovementioned elements, whilst individual and character-specific traits (empowering younger scholars or gatekeeping research networks) are also a more nuanced area that can co-condition the research practices in place. As noted, these power dynamics are replicated in many levels of the scientific system(s). Further, many still recognise that the main limitation relates to an overall asymmetry in resource allocation between and within fields, countries, or even regions. As overviewed, openness to research outputs is not directly dependent on resources allocated to research, but it is nonetheless highly correlated. Likewise, these practices are a general characterisation of more inclusion through transparent research stages, hence they do not represent detailed steps to move from one category to the next. In general, the accountability-information matrix also indicates the relevance of scientific rigor for inclusion and openness, as peer review and knowledge socialisation can effectively lead to increased standards for quality and promote novel perspectives and approaches.

In summary, the practices of OA and OPR, in contrast with established practices of mixed accountability, evidence how a seemingly opaque process can be effectively opened up and committed to the values of access and visibility, actually fostering and consolidating transparency alongside it. By activating the rich data accumulated in such a process (initial submission, editors’ comments, reviewers’ reports, and so on), an additional layer of scholarly accountability is reached. Researchers and reviewers alike gain the incentive of providing more in-depth and precise contributions (whether manuscripts or reports), whilst journals and, crucially, the entire science system also benefit from a more efficient publishing process, with higher quality contributions expanding the respective academic discourses. In this sense, truly transparent processes can effectively push forward the move for a broader and comprehensive open innovation system.

5 Conclusions and Outlook

Having reviewed a small sample of works and ideas regarding the provision of transparent mechanisms in the OS paradigm, it is clear that the concept has been long confounded through its usage as a guiding norm and principle. Supra-national entities boast the term as a keyword in their many documents, presenting and assessing policy initiatives meant to generate more openness and trust from civil society. This intention is particularly relevant when considering the use of public funds for research-intensive projects, which then lead to myriad publications and conference proceedings in outlets that are often far from the public realm. UNESCO, for instance, has made insistent calls to funding bodies and researchers, in general, to pursue publishing in OA journals and, crucially, to engage in OS practices, which go beyond the traditional scientific communication format of articles.

To achieve the aims proposed by UNESCO and the corresponding national funding entities (both private and public), transparency has been set as the mechanism with which to generate more trust, accountability, and responsiveness from civil society (commonly expected through citizen science initiatives). Few systematisations, though, actually narrow down what transparency actually means in the context of research and OS practices. As noted, the idea of transparency goes well beyond access, as it implies not only information provision, but also the appropriate mechanisms with which to make that information (and more often, the data and protocols) actionable. Reproducibility stands out as one of the most precise forms in which that is made possible; yet, reproducibility is an action that demands open standards, open data, and the protocols used for the respective analyses. Even after defining transparency more precisely, it is still difficult to narrow down the ways in which meta-policy like the recommendations made by UNESCO can be made effective. One thing is certain, the turn to transparent research ontologies does require cultural shifts in all levels of research systems.

Institutions may opt for OA transformation schemes, in which subscription budgets are transferred to either OA costs or repository developments, through which scholars can have closer control of the versioning and commenting on their works. This is also possible by stimulating the use of pre-printing as an established mode of scientific output. Funders may also double down on the mandate to open every possible resource associated with the research supported, from protocols, data, infrastructure, and outputs. Some organisations have already advanced in this path, others are embarking on it; however, emphasis should be placed on the actual tools that make access turn into transparent practices (then ontologies) and bring about further accountability to the research process. Lastly, scholars may get acquainted with different modes of OS, emphasising those that offer increased accountability within the system, opening the research processes to both peers and outside stakeholders, such as members of civil society (collective or individual).

Within the OS paradigm, access and trust remain heavily dependent on one another, in a relation that can range from parallel to orthogonal. Transparency can thus contribute to effectively bridging the varying planes of correlation between these two premises; transparent research should be fully accessible and trustworthy. Scientific involvement in problem-solving and more abstract expansive knowledge production can and should be a collaborative undertaking, thus social participation could also play a part in advancing the role of OS and the already popular demand for OA research. In turn, innovative processes can find a more streamlined workflow from conception and registration to output and transfer, whether in further academic spaces or applied products or processes. Despite the difficulties in identifying what transparency means, the scientific system has all the options and the potential to deepen its openness-based approach through responsibility and accountability, seeking to expand the limits of abstract and applied knowledge.