IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v50y2023i3p521-530..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open science–related policies in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Sh Moradi
  • S Abdi

Abstract

This study aims to review the open science (OS) policy documents, identify their subject areas, and distinguish the topics of OS support policies in seven European countries, providing a platform for practical cooperation between countries in science popularization. With a qualitative–inductive approach, all pertinent policy documents in OS were collected through documentary study, and thematic analysis was conducted to identify OS policies for each country. Finally, forty-six policy documents extracted up to December 2020 were thematically analyzed through a qualitative–inductive case study. All selected countries had developed OS policies, and these supportive policies were generally related to the three dimensions of ‘open input, open process, and open output’. In ‘open input’, recommendations for the performance of research data repositories, as well as management criteria, are considered. Most countries adopted ‘open output’ protectionist policies. Multiple policies in the ‘open process’ indicate the need for an appropriate OS platform.

Suggested Citation

  • Sh Moradi & S Abdi, 2023. "Open science–related policies in Europe," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 521-530.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:3:p:521-530.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac082
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dietmar Wolfram & Peiling Wang & Adam Hembree & Hyoungjoo Park, 2020. "Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1033-1051, November.
    2. Huang, Cui & Yang, Chao & Su, Jun, 2021. "Identifying core policy instruments based on structural holes: A case study of China’s nuclear energy policy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    3. Kushwanth Koya & Gobinda Chowdhury, 2020. "Cultural Heritage Information Practices and iSchools Education for Achieving Sustainable Development," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(6), pages 696-710, June.
    4. Silva, Sergio Evangelista & Venâncio, Ana & Silva, Joaquim Ramos & Gonçalves, Carlos Alberto, 2020. "Open innovation in science parks: The role of public policies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    5. Erik Arnold, 2004. "Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 3-17, April.
    6. Vlaisavljevic, Vesna & Medina, Carmen Cabello & Van Looy, Bart, 2020. "The role of policies and the contribution of cluster agency in the development of biotech open innovation ecosystem," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    2. Andrés Barge-Gil & Alberto López, 2015. "R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 93-129.
    3. Esparza Masana, Ricard & Fernández, Tatiana, 2019. "Monitoring S3: Key dimensions and implications," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    4. Shu Yan & Lizi Pan & Yan Lu & Juan Chen & Ting Zhang & Dongzi Xu & Zhaolian Ouyang, 2023. "Towards Sustainable Drug Supply in China: A Bibliometric Analysis of Drug Reform Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.
    5. Ebersberger, Bernd & Edler, Jakob & Lo, Vivien, 2006. "Improving policy understanding by means of secondary analyses of policy evaluation: a concept development," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 12, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    6. Liping Fu & Fan Wu & Shan Zhang, 2022. "Evolutionary Path and Innovative Development of Pharmaceutical Industrial Cluster—A Case Study of Shijiazhuang, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Tea Petrin & Dragana Radicic, 2023. "Instrument policy mix and firm size: is there complementarity between R&D subsidies and R&D tax credits?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 181-215, February.
    8. Ricard Esparza-Masana, 2022. "Towards Smart Specialisation 2.0. Main Challenges When Updating Strategies," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 635-655, March.
    9. Yanzhang Gu & Longying Hu & Hongjin Zhang & Chenxuan Hou, 2021. "Innovation Ecosystem Research: Emerging Trends and Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-21, October.
    10. Chung, Chao-chen, 2013. "Government, policy-making and the development of innovation system: The cases of Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology policies (2000–2008)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1053-1071.
    11. Kirsi Hyttinen & Sampsa Ruutu & Mika Nieminen & Faiz Gallouj & Marja Toivonen, 2014. "A system dynamic and multi-criteria evaluation of innovations in environmental services," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(3), pages 29-52.
    12. Wise, Emily & Arnold, Erik, 2022. "Evaluating Transformation – what can we learn from the literature?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2022/10, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    13. Alberto Albahari & Andrés Barge-Gil & Salvador Pérez-Canto & Paolo Landoni, 2023. "The effect of science and technology parks on tenant firms: a literature review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1489-1531, August.
    14. R. Núñez-Sánchez & A. Barge-Gil & A. Modrego-Rico, 2012. "Performance of knowledge interactions between public research centres and industrial firms in Spain: a project-level analysis," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 330-354, June.
    15. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2019. "Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    16. Kincsö Izsak & Paresa Markianidou & Slavo Radošević, 2015. "Convergence of National Innovation Policy Mixes in Europe – Has It Gone Too Far? An Analysis of Research and Innovation Policy Measures in the Period 2004–12," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 786-802, July.
    17. Okpalaoka, Chijindu Iheanacho, 2023. "Research on the digital economy: Developing trends and future directions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    18. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2013. "Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1647-1656.
    19. Dirk Meissner & Sandrine Kergroach, 2021. "Innovation policy mix: mapping and measurement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 197-222, February.
    20. Haddad, Carolina R. & Bergek, Anna, 2023. "Towards an integrated framework for evaluating transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:3:p:521-530.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.