Does open science make a difference? How do working methods change? What are the barriers to openness?

A UK study, Open to All? Case studies of openness in research, addresses all these issues. The study involved interviews with 18 researchers working across 6 UK research institutions, some of whom were initially sceptical about the 'open science' agenda.

Benefits identified by the study were:

• increasing the efficiency of research
• promoting scholarly rigour and enhancements to research quality, by making information about working methods, protocols and data available for peer review and scrutiny
• enhancing visibility and the scope for engagement
• enabling researchers to ask new research questions
• enhancing collaboration and community-building
• increasing the economic and social impact of research.

Barriers and constraints probably predictably included:

• lack of evidence of benefits and rewards
• lack of skills, time and other resources
• cultures of independence and competition
• concerns about quality
• ethical, legal and other restrictions on accessibility

Recommendations included the need for:

• guidance and skills training about data management and sharing
• supporting tools and standards which encourage open working
• providing incentives and rewards
• increasing awareness of 'open' business models
• gathering, assembling and disseminating examples of good practice in open science.

The study was a joint effort of the Research Information Network and NESTA, the UK National Endowments for Science, Technology and the Arts.