IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v15y2025i8p210-d1712923.html

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.
    4. David Paul A., 2008. "The Historical Origins of 'Open Science': An Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 106-106, October.
    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. Joshua S Gans & Fiona Murray, 2023. "Markets for Scientific Attribution," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 828-846.
    3. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    4. 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).
    5. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    6. 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," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Arthur Buitenen & Arco Timmermans & Gerard Breeman, 2025. "Revealing private interests of non-state actor coalitions in negotiating access and benefit sharing," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 469-488, September.
    8. McCloskey, Deirdre Nansen, 2009. "The Inheritance of Gregory Clark," MPRA Paper 21326, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Seror, Avner, 2018. "A theory on the evolution of religious norms and economic prohibition," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 416-427.
    10. Ghasemzadeh, Behnam & Rasoulzadeh Aghdam, Samad & Hartley, Kris & Bababeimorad, Behnaz & Rahnamayiezekavat, Payam, 2026. "Social challenges in smart cities: a scoping review and framework for policy action," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    11. Joshua S. Gans & Fiona Murray, 2014. "Credit History: The Changing Nature of Scientific Credit," NBER Chapters, in: The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy, pages 107-131, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Gold, E. Richard, 2021. "The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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".
    16. Joel Mokyr, 2016. "Institutions and the Origins of the Great Enrichment," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 44(2), pages 243-259, June.
    17. Antonelli, Cristiano & David, Paul, 2015. "Knowledge, Institutions and Economic Policy: An Introduction," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201513, University of Turin.
    18. Maria Theresa Norn & Laia Pujol Priego & Irene Ramos-Vielba & Thomas Kjeldager Ryan & Marie Louise Conradsen & Thomas Martin Durcan & David G. Hulcoop & Aled Edwards & Susanne Müller, 2024. "Archetypes of Open Science Partnerships: connecting aims and means in open biomedical research collaborations," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    19. Nicholas Gruen, 2009. "Beyond Central Planning: Innovation in Government in the 21st Century," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 42(1), pages 96-103, March.
    20. 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.

    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.