IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/metaar/kqse5_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Economic Impact of Open Science: A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • Tsipouri, Lena
  • Liarti, Sofia
  • Vignetti, Silvia
  • Martins-Grapengiesser, Izabella

Abstract

This paper summarised a comprehensive scoping review of the economic impact of Open Science (OS), examining empirical evidence from 2000 to 2023. It focuses on Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Source Software (OSS), and Open Methods, assessing their contributions to efficiency gains in research production, innovation enhancement, and economic growth. Evidence, although limited, indicates that OS accelerates research processes, reduces the related costs, fosters innovation by improving access to data and resources and this ultimately generates economic growth. Specific sectors, such as life sciences, are researched more and the literature exhibits substantial gains, mainly thanks to OFD and OA. OSS supports productivity, while the very limited studies on Open Methods indicate benefits in terms of productivity gains and innovation enhancement. However, gaps persist in the literature, particularly in fields like Citizen Science and Open Evaluation, for which no empirical findings on economic impact could be detected. Despite limitations, empirical evidence on specific cases highlight economic benefits. This review underscores the need for further metrics and studies across diverse sectors and regions to fully capture OS's economic potential.

Suggested Citation

  • Tsipouri, Lena & Liarti, Sofia & Vignetti, Silvia & Martins-Grapengiesser, Izabella, 2025. "The Economic Impact of Open Science: A Scoping Review," MetaArXiv kqse5_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:metaar:kqse5_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/kqse5_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/67b6e3224342210753313a5c/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/kqse5_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Julian Kolev & Fiona Murray & Scott Stern, 2016. "Of Mice and Academics: Examining the Effect of Openness on Innovation," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01496928, HAL.
    2. Basharat Ali & Peter Dahlhaus, 2022. "The Role of FAIR Data towards Sustainable Agricultural Performance: A Systematic Literature Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, February.
    3. Nathan L. Yozwiak & Stephen F. Schaffner & Pardis C. Sabeti, 2015. "Data sharing: Make outbreak research open access," Nature, Nature, vol. 518(7540), pages 477-479, February.
    4. Michaël Bikard & Keyvan Vakili & Florenta Teodoridis, 2019. "When Collaboration Bridges Institutions: The Impact of University–Industry Collaboration on Academic Productivity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 426-445, March.
    5. Kevin A. Bryan & Yasin Ozcan, 2021. "The Impact of Open Access Mandates on Invention," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 103(5), pages 954-967, December.
    6. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    7. Heidi L. Williams, 2013. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(1), pages 1-27.
    8. repec:plo:pbio00:1002164 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. John Houghton & Peter Sheehan, 2009. "Estimating the Potential Impacts of Open Access to Research Findings," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 127-142, March.
    10. Fiona Murray & Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Julian Kolev & Scott Stern, 2016. "Of Mice and Academics: Examining the Effect of Openness on Innovation," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 212-252, February.
    11. Jonathan Iyandemye & Marshall P Thomas, 2019. "Low income countries have the highest percentages of open access publication: A systematic computational analysis of the biomedical literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-11, July.
    12. Mario Coccia, 2021. "Evolution and structure of research fields driven by crises and environmental threats: the COVID-19 research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9405-9429, December.
    13. Joanna Chataway & Sarah Parks & Elta Smith, 2017. "How Will Open Science Impact on University-Industry Collaboration?," Foresight and STI Governance, National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 11(2), pages 44-53.
    14. Michael J. Fell, 2019. "The Economic Impacts of Open Science: A Rapid Evidence Assessment," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-30, July.
    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. Blandinieres, Florence & Pellens, Maikel, 2021. "Scientist's industry engagement and the research agenda: Evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-001, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Tania Babina & Alex Xi He & Sabrina T. Howell & Elisabeth Ruth Perlman & Joseph Staudt, 2020. "The Color of Money: Federal vs. Industry Funding of University Research," NBER Working Papers 28160, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Byrski, Dennis & Wang, Lucy Xiaolu, 2025. "Marketing authorization and strategic patenting: Evidence from pharmaceuticals," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    4. Kwon, Seokbeom & Marco, Alan C., 2021. "Can antitrust law enforcement spur innovation? Antitrust regulation of patent consolidation and its impact on follow-on innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    5. Michael J. Fell, 2019. "The Economic Impacts of Open Science: A Rapid Evidence Assessment," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-30, July.
    6. Florenta Teodoridis, 2018. "Understanding Team Knowledge Production: The Interrelated Roles of Technology and Expertise," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(8), pages 3625-3648, August.
    7. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.
    8. John Liechty & Stefan Wuyts, 2021. "'If I had a hedge fund, I would cure diabetes': endogenous mechanisms for creating public goods," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(10), pages 1-18, October.
    9. Nancy Gallini, 2017. "Do patents work? Thickets, trolls and antibiotic resistance," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(4), pages 893-926, November.
    10. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    11. Jeffrey L. Furman & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Automation, Research Technology, and Researchers’ Trajectories: Evidence from Computer Science and Electrical Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 330-354, March.
    12. David Karpa & Torben Klarl & Michael Rochlitz, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence, Surveillance, and Big Data," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2108, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. Gao, Yanyan & Zheng, Jianghuai, 2020. "The impact of high-speed rail on innovation: An empirical test of the companion innovation hypothesis of transportation improvement with China’s manufacturing firms," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    15. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Scheufen, Marc & Waelbroeck, Patrick, 2020. "Does online access promote research in developing countries? Empirical evidence from article-level data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    16. Massimo Florio & Simona Gamba, 2021. "Biomed Europa: After the coronavirus, a public infrastructure to overcome the pharmaceutical oligopoly," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(3), pages 387-409, September.
    17. Yin, Hua-Tang & Wen, Jun & Chang, Chun-Ping, 2022. "Science-technology intermediary and innovation in China: Evidence from State Administration for Market Regulation, 2000–2019," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    18. Kevin J. Boudreau, 2018. "Amateurs Crowds & Professional Entrepreneurs as Platform Complementors," NBER Working Papers 24512, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Freilich, Janet & Shahshahani, Sepehr, 2023. "Measuring follow-on innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    20. Augustine Denteh & D'esir'e K'edagni, 2022. "Misclassification in Difference-in-differences Models," Papers 2207.11890, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.

    More about this item

    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:osf:metaar:kqse5_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv .

    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.