91�鶹������Ʒ����

Monitoring open science raises fundamental questions: What culture of monitoring is desirable to promote open science? Who is involved in this monitoring? How can the activity of monitoring itself be opened and used as a tool for engagement through participatory, transparent multi-stakeholder approaches?

To take full advantage of the adoption of the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, transparent and representative monitoring must be put in place to drive and support the intended change as well as to identify effective actions and priority gaps.

A coherent approach to monitoring… 

Member States are requested to report back on their implementation of the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science every four years, beginning in 2025. UNESCO with its partners and the support of a broad international open science community is working towards the development of a global Open Science Monitoring Framework, building upon existing resources and identifying key gaps in the information needed to support decision-making. With a global perspective, this exercise will help share best practices, identify new and existing monitoring criteria, strengthen existing metrics and monitoring tools and develop new monitoring approaches as required. 

According to the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, the monitoring of open science should be explicitly kept under public oversight, including the scientific community, and whenever possible supported by open non-proprietary and transparent infrastructures, including open metadata. 

… leaving no one behind

Considering science as a global public good, it is important not to reduce open science to a few standardized metrics monitored in a top-down approach. Masking variations, particularly those between and within countries, may undermine the transition to a genuinely open science, accessible to all and with benefits for all. Inclusion of scholarly outputs pertinent for all disciplines and practices of science is essential, given the existence of a multiplicity of formats, languages and modes of distribution of scientific knowledge.

… aware of the risks of the ‘streetlight’ effect

Indicators can be considered in terms of their technical validity as well as their political value and value as steering instruments to draw—or distract—attention and resources. The variety of open science practices does not easily lend itself to assignment of overarching indicators, which might engender the risk of certain indicators being mistakenly interpreted as standards of good practices. The risk of “over-standardization” is twofold. Firstly, there may be overestimation and thus reinforcement of “mainstream” open science practices against potentially interesting, yet less widespread ones. Secondly, this could lead governments and institutions to disregard less diffused practices with a consequent loss of diversity and thus decrease of the potential of open science. 

… conscious of the major gaps

Multiple aspects of open science are not yet assessed using standardized metrics or indicators. Major monitoring gaps include ways to assess the impact of open science on science and society as well as trends in the openness of scientific culture, open engagement with societal actors and dialogue with other knowledge systems. The development of monitoring systems, potentially including metrics and indicators as well as sharing case studies, for these two pillars of open science is a priority for tracking the implementation of the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science.

Different communities may prioritize monitoring of different aspects of open science. This diversity in approaches needs to be grounded in and balanced with the values of an internationally comparable comprehensive monitoring framework. 

Excerpted from the UNESCO Open Science Outlook 1: Status and trends around the world.