Open research, as defined by the Open Knowledge Foundation, is set of practices that results in open knowledge, where “Knowledge is open if anyone [has the freedoms] to access, use, modify, and share it — subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and openness.” It also involves considerations such as the FAIR principles – making it Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable – in order to make it as useful as possible for others.
However, there are many barriers that have been identified that prevent researchers from carrying out open research.
Environment and external factors
Researchers have been shown to consider time pressure to be a powerful factor that impacted the publishing process, as well as research and data sharing (Chawinga and Zinn, 2019; Spanager et al., 2013; Stewart et al., 2020). According to some surveys (Al-Halabi et al., 2014; Duracinsky et al., 2017; Stewart et al., 2020) and interview studies (Yarris et al., 2014), lack of time might frustrate data sharing initiatives, cause work-life imbalance, impact research quality and demotivate publishing in general. It also affects early career researchers (ECRs), who mentioned that they had no official time for conducting research (Solaja et al., 2018) or adequately preparing manuscripts.
There is also a lack of guidance. Some surveys reported that scientists, especially ECRs, were not given enough training and mentorship (Turk et al., 2018). This caused difficulties during the publication process. Another survey (D’Souza et al. 2018, Editage Insights 2018) showed that early career researchers (ECRs) needed more guidance on Open Access (OA) publishing. Respondents of another survey stated that they lacked data management and publication skills, and were uncertain about organising and preparing data for sharing (Houtkoop et al., 2018). The majority of those who shared such experiences, mentioned that they would like to have more training and education in this area.
Another factor that affects research culture is limited support, resources and funding. Paying Open Access fees by individual researchers is considered problematic (Fuller et al., 2014; Nyamai et al., 2020; Schroter et al., 2005; Severin et al., 2018). A qualitative study by Watkinson et al. (2017) highlighted that the OA system creates barriers to publishing and inequity of access to funds for individual researchers; therefore, they can struggle to pay publishing fees. Some reviews (Day et al., 2020; Misra, 2016; Vervoort et al., 2021) supported this point, and also mention the problem of paying fees. Results of the review by Siler et al. (2018) show that authors from high-ranked or well-funded institutions are more likely to have the resources to allow them to choose publishing options. Therefore, “there is stratification in institutional representation between different types of publishing access, there is also inequality within access types” (Siler et al., 2018). As a part of a larger perceived problem, some respondents believed that time and resources of grant proposals were used in inappropriate ways, making academics do more administrative work instead of focusing on research itself (Herbert et al., 2013).
The competitive environment has also been mentioned as a barrier. Researchers point out that an unsupportive and competitive environment makes them uncertain or unwilling to share research data (Stevens et al., 2021; Stewart et al., 2020). In publishing, there is a tendency to include the names of authors from high-income countries in the first and last positions, and not to list authors from low-income countries (Rees et al., 2017, 2019). A competitive environment also has a negative effect on ECRs. In an attempt to create a reputation and to be published, they might become victims of predatory journals (McCann and Polacsek, 2018).
A lack of advantage or professional reward has also been mentioned as a barrier to sharing data and publishing open access (OA). A survey by Stieglitz et al. (2020) discovered that researchers do not want to share data due to fear that other researchers will benefit at their expense because findings are more valued than data themselves, so academics will not receive the expected recognition for their work. Some studies show that academics do not feel valued enough when publishing OA or do not see OA publishing as beneficial for their career (Mozersky et al., 2021; Turk et al., 2018; Yarris et al., 2014). Many researchers may simply not consider the benefits of publishing OA, and instead prioritise publishing in journals with a high reputation, as they consider this important for career progression (Köster et al., 2021; Kuballa et al., 2017; Severin et al., 2018). Additionally, there is evidence that authors may perceive open access publications as being less prestigious and lower quality than closed publications (O’Hanlon et al., 2020, O’Kelly et al., 2019). The reputation of OA publishing may also be tarnished by perceived similarity to predatory journals which also use a pay-to-publish model (Lam and Langer-Gould, 2021).
Finally, another barrier is related to journal policies, regarding both open science (Editors and WHO November 2003 Group, 2004; Zečević et al., 2021; Moustafa, 2022; O’Kelly et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2021; Strømme et al., 2022). Several reviews pointed out that journals have inconsistent policies for regulation of open science, preventing authors from sharing their data (Bakker et al., 2017; Gentemann et al., 2022; Hrynaszkiewicz and Cockerill, 2012). Another quantitative study has shown that publishers’ policies play a crucial role in the willingness of academics to share their data, and weak journal policies or unfavourable policies may frustrate data sharing initiatives (Chawinga and Zinn, 2019).
Inequalities between countries with different income levels
Another major theme of the barriers to sharing data and research is the inequalities faced by researchers from countries with different income levels. A problem that has emerged in the literature is related to limited resources in middle- and low-income countries (LMIC) (Brant and Rassouli, 2018) and the dominance of publications from countries with high income (HIC) (Busse and August, 2020). Among the barriers faced by researchers from LMIC are: struggling to pay publication fees (Jain et al., 2021), lack of opportunities to participate in research projects (Cazap et al., 2020), inability to meet journals’ requirements due to limited access to resources (Turk et al., 2018), lack of guidance on the research process (Editors and WHO November 2003 Group, 2004), difficulty of writing in a foreign language (Brant and Rassouli, 2018), poor access to international publications or data (Matheka et al., 2014), and lack of education which leads to poor research quality (O’Hanlon et al., 2020). Also, a barrier of inconsistent internet access was mentioned (Brant and Rassouli, 2018; Matheka et al., 2014).
Another problem that appears in this context is misconduct of researchers from HIC. Some studies show that scientists from HIC undervalue contributions from those from LMIC and may at times exploit them (Rees et al., 2019). Also, there is an unfair tendency not to indicate the authorship of researchers from low-income countries, but instead to include names of authors from high-income countries (Rees et al., 2017). For instance, according to this study, 40% of multi-country studies did not include authors from every LMIC involved. This was caused by power imbalance and “authorship parasitism” among researchers from HIC.
Ideological barriers to sharing
Another barrier that prevents scientists from sharing their studies or data online is concerns about open research practices. One concern researchers have is about data safety, especially in qualitative research. A survey by (Mozersky et al., 2021) has shown that only 4% of qualitative researchers have ever shared qualitative data in a repository. Their main concerns were related to the sensitivity of data, getting permission from participants, and breaching trust. They also cited a lack of finances to cover repository costs, lack of guidance on ethics and a lack of assistance with data anonymisation. Another concern regarding data security was related to the fine line between predatory journals and OA journals (McCann and Polacsek, 2018). According to this study, predatory publishing has created a negative image of OA. Some scientists fear sharing their data because predatory journals aim to make a profit rather than promote scientific activity. Predatory journals may trick authors by creating false websites, hijacking journals to make them believe that they are legitimate publishers.
If researchers are to be supported in producing open knowledge, these barriers must be overcome.