There are global movements aiming to promote reform of the traditional research evaluation and reward systems. However, a comprehensive picture of the existing best practices and efforts across various institutions to integrate Open Science into these frameworks remains underdeveloped and not fully known. The aim of this study was to identify perceptions and expectations of various research communities worldwide regarding how Open Science activities are (or should be) formally recognised and rewarded. To achieve this, a global survey was conducted in the framework of the Research Data Alliance, recruiting 230 participants from five continents and 37 countries. Despite most participants reporting that their organisation had one form or another of formal Open Science policies, the majority indicated that their organisation lacks any initiative or tool that provides specific credits or rewards for Open Science activities. However, researchers from France, the United States, the Netherlands and Finland affirmed having such mechanisms in place. The study found that, among various Open Science activities, Open or FAIR data management and sharing stood out as especially deserving of explicit recognition and credit. Open Science indicators in research evaluation and/or career progression processes emerged as the most preferred type of reward.

CERPOP INSERM and Université de Toulouse 3 Paul Sabatier Toulouse France

CNRS Toulouse France

Faculty of Environmental Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague Prague Czech Republic

Hongik University Seoul South Korea

Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information Seoul South Korea

SciLifeLab Uppsala Sweden

Zobrazit více v PubMed

McKiernan EC, Bourne PE, Brown CT, Buck S, Kenall A, Lin J, et al.. How open science helps researchers succeed. Rodgers P, editor. eLife. 2016;5: e16800. doi: 10.7554/eLife.16800 PubMed DOI PMC

Tennant JP, Waldner F, Jacques DC, Masuzzo P, Collister LB, Hartgerink CHJ. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research; 2016. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8460.3 PubMed DOI PMC

Mabile L, Dalgleish R, Thorisson GA, Deschênes M, Hewitt R, Carpenter J, et al.. Quantifying the use of bioresources for promoting their sharing in scientific research. GigaScience. 2013;2: 2047-217X-2–7. doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-2-7 PubMed DOI PMC

Pontika N, Klebel T, Pride D, Knoth P, Reichmann S, Metzler H, et al.. ON-MERRIT D6.1 Investigating Institutional Structures of Reward & Recognition in Open Science & RRI. Zenodo; 2021. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5552197 DOI

Arthur PL, Hearn L, Montgomery L, Craig H, Arbuckle A, Siemens R. Open scholarship in Australia: A review of needs, barriers, and opportunities. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. 2021;36: 795–812. doi: 10.1093/llc/fqaa063 DOI

Grattarola F, Pincheira-Donoso D. Data-sharing en Uruguay, la visión de los colectores y usuarios de datos. Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica del Uruguay. 2019;28: 1–14. doi: 10.26462/28.1.1 DOI

Shmagun H, Shim J, Chun K, Choi K. Survey-Based Evaluation of Open Science Factors in Korea’s R&D Ecosystem. 16th International Conference on Future Information & Communication Engineering. Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia; 2024. pp. 161–164.

Zuiderwijk A, Shinde R, Jeng W. What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption. PLOS ONE. 2020;15: e0239283. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239283 PubMed DOI PMC

Cole S, Cole JR. Scientific Output and Recognition: A Study in the Operation of the Reward System in Science. American Sociological Review. 1967;32: 377–390. doi: 10.2307/2091085 PubMed DOI

Hrynaszkiewicz I, Novich B, Harney J, Kiermer V. A survey of how biology researchers assess credibility when serving on grant and hiring committees. 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023). International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators; 2023. doi: 10.55835/642ee2edfab37d565e6081a9 DOI

Hahnel M, Smith G, schoenenberger henning, Scaplehorn N, Day L. The State of Open Data 2023. 2023. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.24428194.v1 DOI

Shibayama S, Lawson C. The use of rewards in the sharing of research resources. Research Policy. 2021;50: 104260. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104260 DOI

Shmagun H, Shim J, Kim J, Choi K-N, Oppenheim C. Identifying key factors and actions: Initial steps in the Open Science Policy Design and Implementation Process. Journal of Information Science. 2023; 01655515231205496. doi: 10.1177/01655515231205496 DOI

OECD. Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. Paris; 2015 Oct. Available: 10.1787/9789264239012-en. DOI

Schreier M, Stamann C, Janssen M, Dahl T, Whittal A. Qualitative content analysis: Conceptualizations and challenges in research practice. 2019.

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023. Available: https://www.R-project.org/.

Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan LD, François R, et al.. Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software. 2019;4: 1686. doi: 10.21105/joss.01686 DOI

Bryer J, Speerschneider K. likert: Analysis and Visualization Likert Items. 2016. Available: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=likert.

Moon K-W. webr: Data and Functions for Web-Based Analysis. 2020. Available: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=webr.

Grattarola F. bienflorencia/rda-sharc-survey (v1.1). Zenodo; 2024. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13928150 DOI

David R, Mabile L, Specht A, Stryeck S, Thomsen M, Yahia M, et al.. FAIRness Literacy: The Achilles’ Heel of Applying FAIR Principles. 2020;19: 32. doi: 10.5334/dsj-2020-032 DOI

David AB, Alimohamed M, Paul, Modern G, Buhomoli OS. Knowledge and practices of open science among scholars and researchers in Tanzania. 2022. [cited 9 Feb 2024]. doi: 10.31730/osf.io/vs3j5 DOI

Niemi L, Kuha J, Nurmela O. Open Science practices: Case synthesis. EC2U; 2022. Available: https://ec2u.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/709/2023/05/D7.2-Case-synthesis1.pdf.

Ollé C, López-Borrull A, Melero R, Boté-Vericad J-J, Rodríguez-Gairín J-M, Abadal E. Habits and perceptions regarding open science by researchers from Spanish institutions. PLOS ONE. 2023;18: e0288313. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288313 PubMed DOI PMC

UNESCO. Open science outlook 1: status and trends around the world. 2023. Available: 10.54677/GIIC6829. DOI

Mabile L, Shmagun H, Erdmann C, Cambon-Thomsen A, Thomsen M, Grattarola F, et al.. Recommendations on Open Science Rewards and Incentives: Guidance for multiple stakeholders in Research. Research Data Alliance; 2024. Available: 10.15497/RDA/000117. DOI