Open Science is a major international movement supported by organisations such as the United Nations, UNESCO and the International Science Council. This article reviews the evolving Open Science landscape through the example of crystallography. It argues that there is no single universally accepted definition of Open Science. While some advocates favour “open by default”, UNESCO’s 2021 Recommendation adopts the more nuanced principle of “as open as possible, as closed as necessary”, recognising the need to balance openness with considerations of context such as intellectual property, privacy, security, Indigenous rights and commercial innovation. Many practices now associated with Open Science have long been part of crystallography. The discipline pioneered systematic data sharing through resources such as the Cambridge Structural Database and the Protein Data Bank, and more recently through the archiving of raw experimental data. These developments support reproducibility, validation, data reuse and the growing application of artificial intelligence and machine learning. The article also explores data quality, peer review, publication of negative results, principal investigator responsibilities, industrial participation, global inequalities in scientific publishing, Citizen Science and Open Educational Resources. It highlights the International Union of Crystallography’s ( IUCr) contributions through its journals, databases, Teaching Pamphlets and Online Dictionary of Crystallography. The article further shows that Open Science is interpreted differently across regions of the world, reflecting differing priorities regarding openness, innovation, data sovereignty, equitable participation and societal benefit.
The article argues that Open Science should be understood as responsible openness rather than openness for its own sake. Open sharing can accelerate discovery, improve reproducibility and broaden participation in science, but it must be accompanied by attention to data quality, validation, governance and legitimate restrictions where necessary. The article highlights unresolved challenges, including how to balance rapid sharing of information during emergencies and disasters with the need for validation and quality assurance. In some circumstances delaying release may slow scientific and societal responses, while releasing unvalidated information may undermine trust. Such tensions may not admit a single solution applicable to all situations. Crystallography provides a mature example of how openness, quality assurance and community standards can be combined. Its experience offers useful lessons for wider Open Science policy. Actions arising from my article’s analyses to further dissolve Global South and Global North asymmetries are suggested. IUCr Journals can already document a truly global reach across a very large number of countries and industries, within consistent standards, including linking of publications to their underpinning data. My article shows a map, and tabulates the underpinning data, of numbers of publications in IUCr Journals by country and their total number of citations. Furthermore, IUCr Journals is breaking down Global North and Global South power asymmetries through the large number and wide geographic spread of its co-editors. Likewise, the IUCr offers wide participation through its General Assembly and provides financial support in the form of conference bursaries and article processing charge waivers. These data altogether allow the IUCr to see explicitly where further training initiatives could have most local impact.
Read more on KudosThe following have contributed to this summary: John Helliwell