Open Science Practices in Democratic Societies

Trust in science, and the status of science as a public good, has relied on public institutions as a foundation for providing resources and infrastructure and for adopting policies that promote research integrity. The last few weeks suggest that we could lose some of that foundation in the US. At the moment, we cannot be confident that [1] public data will be preserved and accessible, [2] funding priorities will be shaped by experts in their domains, [3] reporting and accessibility of evidence will be free of partisan influence, and [4] public institutions will have staffing needed to meet their missions. If the rapid decline continues, US research will be severely damaged. The public will not know what to trust, and they will lose access credible research to improve lives. Non-governmental organizations committed to the advancement of science must step up together to address this emerging gap. As impossible as it seems, as a scholarly community, we must be prepared to fulfill the promise of science as a public good, without relying on public institutions of government to ensure it. Optimistically, there are many good organizations. There is capacity to provide infrastructure, communications, and norms to do it ourselves. Also, science is global. We can leverage decentralization as a strength by improving our collaboration and resilience across national boundaries. The Center for Open Science's mission to improve openness, integrity, and reproducibility is an order of magnitude more important in 2025 than it was in 2024. We are just one organization in a community of amazing people and passion to support the production and consumption of credible science. We can all stand up for science. https://cos.io/

Want to learn more of the importance of Open Science? UNESCO adopted in 2021 the Recommendation on Open Science, a work in which Norway, with our expert Hanne Monclair from our Ministry of Education and Research, was and is very involved in. - Why is this so important? Open science revolutionizes the scientific endeavor by breaking down barriers and ensuring that scientific results, tools, processes, and methods are accessible to all. By also bringing scientists together, regardless of their cultural, political, and religious backgrounds, open science democratizes the scientific realm, turning science into a shared heritage rather than a privileged commodity. Open science can serve as a powerful tool to bridge existing gaps in science, technology, and innovation, contributing to both the greater good for science and society and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The COVID-19 pandemic serves as an example, with 85% of COVID-19 articles being open access by mid-2021, leading to unprecedented scientific breakthroughs in record time.

AI, Tokenization, and Open Science Knowledge is power, but who really owns access? In my recent article “The Hidden Crisis of Knowledge Inequality” I explored how the global knowledge economy remains deeply unequal, with scientific advancements disproportionately concentrated in high-income countries. Just as wealth begets wealth, knowledge begets knowledge, reinforcing intellectual dominance. Now, AI and tokenization are being hailed as solutions to democratize science. But will they truly break down barriers or create new forms of control? Think about it: 🔹 AI is accelerating research, writing papers, and even reviewing science. But if its models remain proprietary, are we decentralizing knowledge or centralizing it under tech giants? 🔹 Tokenization promises to reward contributions (scientists, peer reviewers etc) and make funding transparent. But if access to tokenized systems is limited, are we really empowering all researchers? 🔹 Open Science was meant to make knowledge accessible. But if these technologies aren’t governed inclusively, are we just replacing old gatekeepers with new ones? The promise: A more equitable knowledge economy where ideas, data, and funding flow freely. The risk: A new intellectual oligarchy where technology reinforces, rather than dismantles, knowledge inequality. Technology alone won’t solve this crisis. Governance, inclusivity, and ethical frameworks will decide whether AI and tokenization empower or exclude. Will we use these tools to build a fairer system or just shift power from one elite to another? Read my article here: https://shorturl.at/lM3ke

Over three editorials in the BAR Brazilian Administration Review, Pablo Rogers and I reflect on how open science can (and should) stop being just an ideal and become an everyday practice. The acts don't discuss isolated steps, but a journey: understanding the fundamentals, adopting tools, and transforming them into a method. More than a technical debate, the central point is pedagogical. If we want more reliable, collaborative, and transparent science, we need to train researchers from an early age with this ethos. This means that open science isn't just about available data or code—it's about academic guidance that values clear planning, replicable practices, and a commitment to making knowledge accessible. In this context, ARTE workflow emerges as a methodological proposal to bridge the gap between discourse and practice, offering an incremental path for faculty, advisors, and students to truly experience open science in their projects. Open science isn't learned just by reading about it; it's learned by practicing, sharing, making mistakes, and adjusting together. This trilogy is an invitation to integrate this into the scientific education process. 📌 Check out the full series: 🔗 Act I https://lnkd.in/dEEsF-5a 🔗 Act II https://lnkd.in/dPf69GF8 🔗 Act III https://lnkd.in/dd2b6757 #OpenScience #OpenScience #AcademicEducation #Reproducibility