IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v15y2025i8p210-d1712923.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Online Probability Panels in Europe: New Trends and Old Challenges in the Era of Open Science

Author

Listed:
  • Luciana Taddei

    (Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, Italian National Research Council (CNR-IRPPS), 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Dario Germani

    (Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, Italian National Research Council (CNR-IRPPS), 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Nicolò Marchesini

    (Italian National Institute of Statistics (Istat), 00198 Rome, Italy
    The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the view of the belonging Institute.)

  • Rocco Paolillo

    (Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, Italian National Research Council (CNR-IRPPS), 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Claudia Pennacchiotti

    (Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, Italian National Research Council (CNR-IRPPS), 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Ilaria Primerano

    (Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, Italian National Research Council (CNR-IRPPS), 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Michele Santurro

    (Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, Italian National Research Council (CNR-IRPPS), 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Loredana Cerbara

    (Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, Italian National Research Council (CNR-IRPPS), 00185 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

Online Probability Panels (OPPs) have emerged as essential research infrastructures for social sciences, offering robust tools for longitudinal analysis and evidence-based policy-making. However, the growing role of the Open Science movement demands systematic evaluation of their compliance. This study compares major European OPPs—including LISS, GESIS, the GIP, ELIPSS, and the Swedish and Norwegian Citizen Panels—focusing on their practices of openness, recruitment, sampling, and maintenance. Through a qualitative analysis of public documentation and methodological reports, the study examines how their diverse approaches influence data accessibility, inclusivity, and long-term usability. Our findings highlight substantial variability across panels, reflecting the interplay between national contexts, governance models, technological infrastructures, and methodological choices related to recruitment, sampling, and panel maintenance. Some panels demonstrate stronger alignment with Open Science values—promoting transparency, interoperability, and inclusive engagement—while others operate within more constrained frameworks shaped by institutional or structural limitations. This comparative analysis contributes to the understanding of OPPs as evolving knowledge infrastructures and provides a reference framework for future panel development. In doing so, it offers valuable insights for enhancing the role of OPPs in advancing open and socially engaged research practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Luciana Taddei & Dario Germani & Nicolò Marchesini & Rocco Paolillo & Claudia Pennacchiotti & Ilaria Primerano & Michele Santurro & Loredana Cerbara, 2025. "Comparison of Online Probability Panels in Europe: New Trends and Old Challenges in the Era of Open Science," Societies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:15:y:2025:i:8:p:210-:d:1712923
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/8/210/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/8/210/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:15:y:2025:i:8:p:210-:d:1712923. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.