Jul 2026· Social Epistemology· Vol 40, pp. 511 - 516· 0 citations· 27 references
Abstract
This special issue examines the promises and limitations of Open Science (OS) and the conditions that produce inequity, injustice, and exclusion in research. Going well beyond the free sharing of publications typically referred to as Open Access, OS aspires to take advantage of new communication technologies to enhance access to and use of all the components of research, ranging from data to models, software, techniques, instruments, protocols and review procedures (Boulton and Royal Society 2012). OS advocates argue that the competitive and proprietary regimes and metrics under which research is currently conducted damage the reliability, quality, and social relevance of science. The main reason is that these regimes and metrics erode opportunities for critical scrutiny and collaboration which are the hallmarks of scientific work. They also disincentivise the exchange of insights and methods within and across disciplines (Radder 2010) leading to an inward-looking academic culture more interested in competing for the next high-impact publication than in developing reliable long-term solutions to societal and environmental challenges (Edwards and Roy 2017).
ABSTRACT This paper discusses three forms of structural injustice associated with disparities in the resources available to researchers, and the opportunity researchers have to pursue their scientific goals. These are: (1) resource injustice; (2) focus injustice; and (3) labour injustice. I argue that such structural injustice has significant epistemic implications, resulting in: shifts in research content; the exclusion of substantive portions of scientific community from contributing to knowledge production to the best of their abilities; the exclusion of specific methods and data sources from global scientific discourse, on grounds other than scientific quality and relevance; a loss of quality and reliability in processes and outcomes of inquiry; and the inability to implement openness and related forms of constructive scrutiny. To exemplify these forms of injustice and their epistemic implications, I discuss everyday challenges within life science sites in Italy, Ghana and Greece, as documented through ethnographic research. I conclude that structural injustice permeates the institutional and material conditions for the acquisition and evaluation of knowledge in many research locations around the globe, with damaging implications for epistemic practices; and that this prompts a reconceptualisation of what openness in research may mean and how this concept may be better implemented.
ABSTRACT Open science advocates aim to address epistemic injustice and global power asymmetries in research infrastructures yet underestimate structural vulnerabilities and risks embedded in data sharing practices. Drawing on an ethnographic study of the GCRF South–South Migration Inequality and Development Hub’s (MIDEQ), we argue that even well-intentioned systems, such as the MIDEQ hub, do not reach these vulnerabilities. To capture these overlooked harms, we employ the concept of epistemic disadvantage, a category coextensive with, but separate from epistemic injustice. Epistemic disadvantage includes ethically justified data withholding and misappropriation within consensual systems, which is not captured by existing notions of extractivism as those focus on the monetisation of epistemic resources without regard for the loss incurred by the originating community. To better account for these harms, we draw on two recent epistemic attitudes: the Book of Truths (BoT), which sees scientific truths as emerging through peer review, and the Book of Conversations (BoC), which values data for the interactions and reflections it provokes. Even when epistemic values recognise knowledge as relational and situated, extractivist harms persist. We offer an ameliorated concept of extractivism to include subtler, systemic harms rooted in epistemic disadvantage.
R. Alcalay, Joachim Vandekerckhove· Social Epistemology· 0 citations
Watchdog science journalism is essential to scrutinise the structural and financial conditions of scientific research. As a crucial part of this system, experts play a pivotal role in shaping knowledge, guiding policy, and influencing societal decisions. Their credibility is embedded in a complex web of relationships that brings about different conflicts of interest (COIs). Yet, journalists’ ability to uncover entanglements and ensure accountability is limited by often incomplete disclosure and conceptual vagueness of what exactly constitutes a COI. Using (bio-)medical research as an example, we develop a multidimensional typology of COIs, based on an extensive review of academic literature and disclosure frameworks in science, practice, and policy-making. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive mapping of structural, social, and material factors in a single overview to date. While not all these interdependencies are inherently problematic for a functioning research system, they still require journalists to navigate them and carefully evaluate their significance. To facilitate this, the framework also serves as both a matrix and a corrective for potential AI-based systems detecting COIs. Even though transparency and critique are central to watchdog science journalism, journalists should also be careful not to undermine public trust in science generally. Conflicts have to be evaluated carefully but without portraying science funding as inherently corrupt—thus feeding narratives of science-related populism. By foregrounding the systemic nature of COIs, this perspective supports reflection on professional norms, strategies, and principled decision-making in investigative reporting—also regarding journalism’s own entanglements with individual and third-party interests.
Cheyenne Moon Peters, Tobias Kreutzer, Holger Wormer· Media and Communication· 0 citations
Abstract In this text, we examine how neoliberalism and digitalization have transformed science in the post-pandemic context. We argue that a 'neoliberal regime of science' has emerged that transforms researchers into 'self-entrepreneurs,' constantly monitoring individual metrics such as h-index and impact factors, abandoning the communal character of research. The platformization of science, reinforced by the 'open science' movement, paradoxically contributes to epistemic fragmentation and the intensification of preprint publication, undermining the traditional order of peer-reviewed scientific communication. The growing use of altmetrics and automated systems subordinates the evaluation of knowledge to the imperatives of the digital market, aggravating global inequalities by favoring hegemonic centers and rendering the science of the Global South invisible. We conclude that the democratization of science cannot be reduced to the technical openness of data, but requires broad reflection on models of scientific development through genuinely democratic mechanisms.
F. Neves, Priscilla Normando· Sociedade e Estado· 0 citations
International science collaboration countries have expanded considerably in recent years; nevertheless, institutional and organizational barriers and challenges continue to undermine the effectiveness of joint research initiatives. This study examines how such barriers are associated with perceived academic and technological outcomes, drawing on a primary dataset of 396 survey responses from researchers in BRICS-countries-based collaborations. The questionnaire was refined through in-person consultations with multidisciplinary specialists (engineering, management, economics, and geoscience) to ensure conceptual and content validity. Gray incidence analysis (GIA) was implemented to evaluate the strength of associations between reported barriers, challenges, and collaborative impacts. To ensure research rigor, multiple sensitivity and consistency checks were conducted, including the variation of the distinguishing coefficient θ in the GIA method to verify the stability of the incidence rankings under different parameter settings. Findings indicate that financial and organizational misalignments are more strongly associated with reduced collaborative effectiveness than intercultural or interpersonal challenges. Conversely, positive impacts are reflected in productivity gains, reputational improvements, and opportunities for joint events. These results suggest that while science collaborations deliver substantial academic and technological benefits, their sustainability is closely linked to institutional alignment, consistent financial support, and shared governance mechanisms. The study provides relevant insights for both policymakers and researchers by highlighting the obstacles most critical to long-term and impactful scientific cooperation.
Damaris Chieregato Vicentin, G. H. S. M. de Moraes, B. Fischer et al.· IEEE transactions on enginee...· 0 citations
Science routinely appeals to the idea of serving the common good, at least in part to justify public funding. Yet, there is growing recognition that current research structures and incentives impede the fulfilment of this ideal. This paper argues that this shortfall stems from the dominance of liberal conceptions of the common good, which position science as an external and instrumental service provider whose worth lies in producing measurable outcomes. Examples from synthetic biology show how such conceptions make science vulnerable to vested interests, reinforce its commodification and corrode the collaborative relationships on which scientific practice depends. We propose instead a network conception that regards science as internal to, and constitutive of, the common good. Drawing on the Aristotelian tradition, this view holds that the common good in science is generated through the relationships, practices, and values that enable communities to flourish together. Using research case examples, we illustrate how the network conception of the common good can guide science away from an outcome-driven orientation towards one grounded in community ideals. We conclude that reimagining science as a relational practice offers a more generative path toward reforming research culture, governance, and evaluation in service of human flourishing.
Kelly Hamilton, Kelby Fransisca, Annie Sandrussi et al.· Minerva· 0 citations