Academic Debates on Open Science policies in the Netherlands.

What are the academic debates in relation to effective open science policies and practices elsewhere that are useful for the Netherlands? How is this outcome defined and understood in literature and what are the key factors that enable or hinder this outcome such as traditional reward and recognition systems, academic neocolonialism, established paywall models?

Rough structure to follow (do not worry if your article doesn’t follow all those points, you don’t have to include all of them):
Introduction text / define concepts discussed
Benefits of Open Science
Challenges and Barriers to Open Science Adoption
Impact and Evaluation of Open Science Practices
Critical analysis text
Defining gaps in research
Critical look at background author
Compare texts
Open Science Initiatives

Color coding:
if you are writing introduction text/define concepts discussed, put it in PINK
if you are writing about benefits of OS, put it in GREEN
if you are writing about challenges and barriers to OS adoption, put it in RED
if you are writing about impact and evaluation of OS practices. put it in PURPLE
if you are writing about critical analysis text , put it in GRAY
if you are comparing texts, put it in BLUE
if you are writing about the open science initiatives, put it in ORANGE


suggestions for sources:
UNESCO Nederlandse commissie – Volgende stap voor het implementeren van de Aanbeveling over Open Science

UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science

Open science outlook 1: status and trends around the world

Nakamura, Gabriel, Bruno Eleres Soares, Valério D. Pillar, José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho, and Leandro Duarte. “Three pathways to better recognize the expertise of Global South researchers.” npj Biodiversity 2, no. 1 (2023): 17.

Fuller, Richard A., Jasmine R. Lee, and James EM Watson. “Achieving open access to conservation science.” Conservation Biology 28, no. 6 (2014): 1550-1557.

UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science is the first international standard setting instrument on open science.

Vicente-Saez, Ruben, and Clara Martinez-Fuentes. “Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition.” Journal of business research 88 (2018): 428-436.
Fecher, Benedikt, and Sascha Friesike. Open science: one term, five schools of thought. Springer International Publishing, 2014.

Cook, Carly N., Marc Hockings, and R. W. Carter. “Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8, no. 4 (2010): 181-186.

Adcock, Joanna, and Edward Fottrell. “The North-South information highway: case studies of publication access among health researchers in resource-poor countries.” Global Health Action 1, no. 1 (2008): 1865.

Veríssimo, Diogo, Thomas Pienkowski, Melissa Arias, Laure Cugnière, Hunter Doughty, Mirjam Hazenbosch, Emiel De Lange, Annalyse Moskeland, and Molly Grace. “Ethical publishing in biodiversity conservation science.” Conservation & Society 18, no. 3 (2020): 220-225.

Aguinis, Herman, George C. Banks, Steven G. Rogelberg, and Wayne F. Cascio. “Actionable Recommendations for Narrowing the Science-Practice Gap in Open Science.” Organizational behavior and human decision processes 158 (2020): 27–35.

Moradi, Sh, and S Abdi. “Open Science–Related Policies in Europe.” Science & public policy 50, no. 3 (2023): 521–530.

Papia Sengupta, Open access publication: Academic colonialism or knowledge philanthropy?, Geoforum, Volume 118, 2021, Pages 203-206, ISSN 0016-7185, .

Last Completed Projects

topic title academic level Writer delivered