IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i6p928-941..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anti-transparency within the EU shift to open science
[Impact of Open Science Methods and Practices on the Economics of Research and Science]

Author

Listed:
  • Gustaf Nelhans
  • Jan NolinS

Abstract

In 2014, the European Commission initiated a process to strengthen science 2.0 as a core research policy concept. However, this turned into a substantial ideational shift. The concept of science 2.0 was dropped. Instead, open science became established as one of the three pillars of the €94 billion research framework programme Horizon Europe. This article scrutinises the official narrative regarding the shift of concepts, identifying transparency issues, specifically misrepresentation of concepts and data, and the redaction of key material. This can be characterised as problems of input legitimacy. A public consultation did take place, but numerous transparency issues can be found. From science 2.0 to open science, the ideational shift was portrayed as simply a matter of exchanging two synonymous concepts. However, science 2.0 is a descriptive concept referring to science being transformed by digitalisation. In contrast, open science involves normative assumptions about how science should work and be governed.

Suggested Citation

  • Gustaf Nelhans & Jan NolinS, 2022. "Anti-transparency within the EU shift to open science [Impact of Open Science Methods and Practices on the Economics of Research and Science]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 928-941.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:6:p:928-941.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac039
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:6:p:928-941.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.