Open science beyond open access

Open science makes research processes and outputs available for scrutiny, collaboration and reuse. It extends beyond free-to-read articles to methods, data, software and peer review, supported by tools, policies and communication practices that make research usable by others.

Scope and purpose

Open science is the practice of science across STEM disciplines so that others can collaborate and contribute, with research data and processes freely available on terms enabling reuse, redistribution and reproduction. ¹ It includes peer-reviewed publications, data repositories, workflow and collaboration tools, and science policies and mandates. ^{1, 2}

Five components lie at its centre: open access, open methodology, open data, open source and open peer review. ^{3, 4} Together they enable critical evaluation of major research components, collaboration through relevant networks and knowledge sharing with amateur and professional audiences throughout society. ³ Faster, easier access to data, technologies and tools can drive innovation and accelerate responses to existing or future social crises, with digital communication amplifying those effects. ⁵ Open science also has the potential to improve confidence in science and trust in pharmaceutical-industry evidence. ¹

Development of the movement

Open science dates back to the late 1600s, when theories were openly questioned and experiments repeated to test reproducibility. ⁶ Closing access to data, methods and publications impedes scientific work and the discourse needed for sound, reproducible results, while excluding the public from conversations about new research. ⁶ Digital communication and open science advanced together as information technology expanded opportunities to share information and build networks. ⁶ Open science, data science and social media share social and technological transformations that have influenced scientific practice. ^{6, 3}

Four developments contributed to open science in the digital age. ³

1. PLOS Biology launched in 2003, boosting open-access publishing.
2. John Ioannidis's critical article “Why most published research findings are false” appeared in 2005.
3. PLOS ONE launched in 2006 to facilitate postpublication peer review.
4. GitHub launched in 2008, making scientific version control easier.

³

The Budapest Open Access Initiative, developed in December 2001 by people from many countries and disciplines, called for combining unpaid research publication with the internet to remove access barriers, accelerate research, enrich education and connect people in a common intellectual conversation. ³ The Bethesda Statement from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the October 2003 Berlin Declaration from the Max Planck Society broadened support for open science. ³

Tools for open research

Making data available is insufficient if the software needed to view, handle and transfer it is unavailable or difficult to use; the data themselves also need to be high quality. ⁷ The OpenScience Project creates free, easy-to-use open-source scientific software for people exploring the natural world. ⁷ Open electronic laboratory notebooks can complement articles when their methods sections make experiments difficult to replicate, and journals may request detailed protocols. ⁷

Open Pharma's collaboration

Established in 2016, Open Pharma operates as a member-led, multisponsor, non-profit-seeking collaboration facilitated by the HealthScience consultancy Oxford PharmaGenesis. ^{8, 9} It aims to make communication of pharmaceutical-company-funded research faster, more transparent, accessible and sustainable through open science principles including open access and plain language. ⁸ Its charter holds that company-funded research should be published transparently, accountably, accessibly and discoverably. ¹⁰

Members and Supporters contribute financially at different levels, both participating in discussions, events and research; Members also advise and vote on strategy. ¹⁰ In 2023 the Members were AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galápagos, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Oxford PharmaGenesis, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB, while Supporters were Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Roche and Taylor & Francis. ¹⁰ Nonpaying advisors from policy organisations, publishers, academic funders, patients and open-science innovation participate in meetings and other activities; followers read the blog and newsletter, engage on social platforms, attend public events and use its resources. ¹⁰

In 2023, Open Pharma worked in four ways. ^{8, 10}

1. Think tank: it developed positions and recommendations, including an open-access position statement and plain-language-summary recommendations.
2. Research hub: it produced evidence and free resources, including a plain-language-document crib sheet, an ORCID adoption toolkit and open-access slides; research posters addressed open-access publishing, ORCID use and summary discoverability.
3. Knowledge-sharing club: it brought stakeholders together through events and shared news, a weekly digest, expert commentary and resources through its blog and newsletter.
4. Forum for member voices: it ran topic meetings, roundtables and working groups to identify needs and solutions in pharmaceutical research communication.

^{8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16}

Events in 2022 and 2023 brought together pharmaceutical, publishing, medical communication and patient perspectives, including an open-science-and-trust symposium at the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers' 2022 conference and two virtual talk shows in February 2023. ¹⁴ Open Pharma also held open-access and plain-language-summary roundtables, workshops and presentations at ISMPP, Council of Science Editors and EMWA meetings during those years. ¹⁷ Its June 2022 Pharma and Publishers Forum addressed four core topics: plain language summaries, open access, discoverability and data sharing. ¹⁶

In 2023, planned work included more precise terminology for plain-language documents and helping stakeholders use natural-language-processing and AI tools in publication development, quality assessment and regulation while maintaining publication integrity. ¹⁸

Incentives and the writer's role

Academic reward systems can discourage openness: a critique quoted in 2022 held that traditional high-impact-journal publication counts and citation counts determine funding and promotion at most institutions, leaving open science neutral or damaging by those measures. ¹⁹

Medical writers and communicators can advance open-science publication principles and best practices. ^{20, 21} Through work with researchers, authors, pharmaceutical publication teams and publishers, writers can understand the challenges of closed publication systems and the benefits of more open, collaborative, audience-centred approaches, communicate those benefits to clients and help set standards for quality, transparency and accountability. ^{8, 22, 23}