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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louise M. Bezuidenhout & Sabina Leonelli & Ann H. Kelly & Brian Rappert, 2017. "Beyond the digital divide: Towards a situated approach to open data," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(4), pages 464-475.
    2. Carina Cornesse & Annelies G. Blom, 2023. "Response Quality in Nonprobability and Probability-based Online Panels," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 52(2), pages 879-908, May.
    3. Eleanor Singer & Cong Ye, 2013. "The Use and Effects of Incentives in Surveys," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 112-141, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Svaboe, Gunnhild Beate Antonsen & Tørset, Trude & Lohne, Jardar, 2025. "Recruitment strategies in app-based travel surveys: Methodological explorations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    2. Deniz Dutz & Ingrid Huitfeldt & Santiago Lacouture & Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Winnie van Dijk, 2021. "Selection in Surveys: Using Randomized Incentives to Detect and Account for Nonresponse Bias," NBER Working Papers 29549, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Nadeem, Kashif & Wong, Sut I. & Za, Stefano & Venditti, Michelina, 2024. "Digital transformation and industry 4.0 employees: Empirical evidence from top digital nations," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    4. Haifeng Zhao & Nosherwan Khaliq & Chunling Li & Judit Oláh, 2024. "In quest of perceived transaction cost’s impact on fintech users’ intention: the moderating role of situational factors," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Jing Peng & Christophe Van den Bulte, 2024. "Participation vs. Effectiveness in Sponsored Tweet Campaigns: A Quality-Quantity Conundrum," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(11), pages 7961-7983, November.
    6. Tuyen Thanh Nguyen & John R. Baker & Thao Quang Le, 2024. "A Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling Exploration of EFL Learners’ Perceptions of What Contributes to the Readability of Model Paragraphs," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(2), pages 21582440231, April.
    7. Hinz, Thomas & Marczuk, Anna & Multrus, Frank, 2024. "Student opinions on the escalation of violence in Israel and Gaza and antisemitism at German universities," Working Papers 17, University of Konstanz, Cluster of Excellence "The Politics of Inequality. Perceptions, Participation and Policies".
    8. Rolf Becker, 2025. "The effect of prepaid incentives on panelists’ response across survey modes in a sequential mixed-mode design," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 29-49, February.
    9. Bürgel, Tobias R. & Hiebl, Martin R.W. & Pielsticker, David I., 2023. "Digitalization and entrepreneurial firms' resilience to pandemic crises: Evidence from COVID-19 and the German Mittelstand," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PA).
    10. Tobias Gummer & Pablo Christmann & Sascha Verhoeven & Christof Wolf, 2022. "Using a responsive survey design to innovate self‐administered mixed‐mode surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(3), pages 916-932, July.
    11. Hannah Schwarz & Melanie Revilla & Bella Struminskaya, 2022. "Do previous survey experience and participating due to an incentive affect response quality? Evidence from the CRONOS panel," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(3), pages 981-1003, July.
    12. Kassoum Dianou & Abdramane B. Soura & Shammi Luhar & Kelly McCain & Georges Reniers & Bruno Masquelier & Bruno Lankoandé & Ashira Menashe-Oren & Malebogo Tlhajoane & Hervé Bassinga, 2025. "The use of mobile phone surveys for rapid mortality monitoring: A national study in Burkina Faso," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 52(16), pages 479-518.
    13. Hinz, Thomas & Marczuk, Anna & Multrus, Frank, 2024. "Studentisches Meinungsklima zur Gewalteskalation in Israel und Gaza und Antisemitismus an deutschen Hochschulen," Working Papers 16, University of Konstanz, Cluster of Excellence "The Politics of Inequality. Perceptions, Participation and Policies".
    14. Hinz, Thomas & Marczuk, Anna & Multrus, Frank, 2025. "Antisemitismus und pro-palästinensische Proteste an deutschen Hochschulen: Befragungsergebnisse bei Studierenden und Hochschulleitungen," Working Papers 43, University of Konstanz, Cluster of Excellence "The Politics of Inequality. Perceptions, Participation and Policies".
    15. Abrams, Ellen & Leone, Paolo V. & Cambrosio, Alberto & Faraj, Samer, 2025. "The governance of open science: A comparative analysis of two open science consortia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(3).
    16. Kim, Hyung Jin & Kim, Inchan & Lee, Hogeun, 2016. "Third-party mobile app developers’ continued participation in platform-centric ecosystems: An empirical investigation of two different mechanisms," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 44-59.
    17. Cassandra Crowe & Belinda Middleweek & Laura Ryan & Alicia Vidler & Bronwen Whiting, 2024. "The role of gender in promotion rates in the Australian Finance Industry," Papers 2409.14384, arXiv.org.
    18. Smith, E. Keith & Henninger, Ella & de Lauriere, Camille Fournier & Koubi, Vally & Moolla, Raeesa & Beiser-McGrath, Liam F. & Bernauer, Thomas, 2025. "Strong demand for clean air policies in emerging markets and developing economies," OSF Preprints 92bst_v1, Center for Open Science.
    19. Rolf Becker, 2022. "The effects of a special sequential mixed-mode design, and reminders, on panellists’ participation in a probability-based panel study," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 259-284, February.
    20. Roberto Cibin, 2023. "When Sociotechnical Imaginaries Become True: Digital Transition of Public Services and Inequalities during the Pandemic," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, October.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.