Paper short abstract:

As the transition towards OS unfolds, there are increasing initiatives to monitor it. We argue that monitoring frameworks should shift from current focus on outpus (papers, datasets) towards the processes (connections) and impacts that reflect OS values such as equity and inclusion.

Paper long abstract:

Following a flurry of policies for Open Science (OS), there is now a wave of initiatives to monitor its adoption, including a recent UNESCO report. However, there is a danger that by focusing on what can be readily observed (e.g. publications and datasets) many other OS activities are overlooked (e.g. participation), with a potential narrowing of OS scope, ‘street-light’ effects, and deviation from values of OS such as. In this presentation, we will argue that a monitoring OS requires a profound change in assessment framework. The scope should broaden from the current focus on outputs (such as publications) towards the processes of connection that make science ‘open’ (usage, co-creation and dialogue), as well as towards outcomes (changes in practices) and the longer-term impacts that reflect the values and normative commitments of OS. In particular, we will highlight the importance of considering ‘directionality’, i.e. mapping the different trajectories within each OS dimension (e.g. different colours of the routes to OS), as well as their potential effects in terms of relevant values such as equity and inclusion. In summary, we propose that we shouldn’t monitor whether there is more or less OS, but what types of OS are developed and adopted, by whom, and with what consequences, in particular in terms of distribution of benefits.