Short abstract:

This paper examines the belief that open science, via publishing platforms, promotes transparency and accessibility. However, concerns about inequalities, commercialization, and the shift towards a ‘right to publish’ culture challenge this perception.

Long abstract:

This paper discusses the suggestion that open science, grounded in Merton’s CUDOS norms and promoting common ownership and universalism, can be realized through publishing platforms. By investigating the notion of transparency and removing barriers and post-publication peer review, the idea that such platforms are crucial to openness is examined.

This perspective is contextualized by Sabina Leonelli’s (2023) argument that openness alone fails to address inequalities and barriers effectively. Moreover, Philip Mirowski’s (2018) concern regarding the potential commercialization of research and platform capitalism and Jan Nolin’s (2018) argument on the unintended consequences of ‘radical transparency’ in open movements, particularly concerning privacy, are underscored.

In contrast to traditional gatekeeping mechanisms based on journal impact factors and editorial decisions, research funders like the Wellcome Trust, Gates Foundation, and Open Research Europe decide who can publish on their platform. However, the emergence of streamlined and mechanized publishing processes in mega-publishers and platforms like F1000 risks shifting towards a culture of publishing more aligned with the right to publish than the exclusive rigour of quality standards, potentially compromising the dissemination of impactful research.

A process-oriented approach emphasizing the contextual and tentative nature of research findings, aligned with Leonelli’s perspective, is advocated to promote scholarly publishing in line with contemporary scientific understanding. This underscores the need to balance openness with a selection process which upholds quality standards.